37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 060
CONTENTS
Friday, May 11, 2001
1000
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1005
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1010
1015
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1020
1025
1030
1035
| Mr. Ted White |
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANNES FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1100
| OTTAWA TAXIS
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| CANADIAN MUSEUMS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1105
| INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY
|
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
| SOCIÉTÉ LITTÉRAIRE DE LAVAL
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| CATHOLIC CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| CANADA HEALTH DAY
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1110
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| MOTHERS' DAY
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| ACADIA UNIVERSITY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| TEACHING AWARDS
|
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
1115
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Robert Thibault |
1130
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| URBAN AFFAIRS
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1135
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| MONETARY UNION
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1140
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1145
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1150
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1155
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PORT INFRASTRUCTURES
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. John Finlay |
1200
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GRANTS AND LOANS
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Privacy Commissioner
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1205
1210
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1215
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| INUVIALUIT FINAL AGREEMENT REPORT
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| GWICH'IN LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
1220
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1225
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Report stage
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1230
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1255
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1325
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Second reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1335
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1340
1345
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1350
1355
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1400
1405
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1410
1415
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1420
1425
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 060
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 11, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules,
certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension
Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Modernization of
Benefits and Obligations Act and another act related to the
Excise Tax Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1005
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By
leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
address the House at third reading of Bill C-22, the income tax
amendments act, 2000.
The bill would implement key elements of the government's five
year tax reduction plan, the largest tax relief package in
Canada's history, and would legislate the technical amendments in
Bill C-43 which died on the order paper last fall. Each measure
in the bill is based on the principles of fairness and equity in
the federal tax system to which we have been committed since
1993.
The most important component of the bill delivers measures
announced in the 2000 budget and last October's economic
statement to set out a multiyear plan for further tax reductions.
[Translation]
This plan, which provides $100 billion in tax relief by
2004-05, will reduce by an average of 21% the federal personal
income tax paid by Canadians.
Families with children will receive an even larger tax cut of
about 27% on average.
[English]
As of January 2001, tax rates on all income levels were reduced
and the 5% deficit reduction surtax was eliminated. The low and
middle income tax rates fell to 16% and 22% respectively. The
top 29% rate was reduced to 26% on incomes between $61,000 and
$100,000, which means the 29% rate applies only to income over
$100,000. As all the economists and analysts have noted, the
timing could not have been more perfect to bring in these tax
cuts.
Increased support for families with children would be provided
through the Canada child tax benefit. The maximum Canada child
tax benefit for the first child would rise to $2,372 in July,
well on the way to the five year goal of $2,500 by the year 2004.
For the second child the maximum Canada child tax benefit would
increase to $2,308 in July 2004.
[Translation]
These amendments must be in effect by July 1, so that families
can get this benefit within the set timeframe.
Other amendments to personal income tax are specifically
designed to help those who need them most.
[English]
The bill would increase the amount on which the disability tax
credit is based. It would expand the list of relatives to whom
the disability tax credit can be transferred to make it
consistent with medical expense tax credit rules and it would
allow speech language pathologists to determine eligibility for
the disability tax credit with respect to speech impairments.
In addition, the bill would increase the maximum child care
expense deduction for children for whom the disability tax credit
can be claimed and the amounts on which the caregiver and infirm
dependant credits are based.
It would also include certain incremental costs under the
medical expenses tax credit when a principal residence is built
for people with mobility impairments.
[Translation]
Moreover, an amount of up to $3,000 in scholarships, fellowships
and bursaries will be tax exempt, provided the student is
eligible for the education tax credit. Self-employed workers can
deduct from their income the share of the contributions to the
Canada pension plan or to the Quebec pension plan paid by the
employer for their own benefit.
[English]
Other personal income tax changes clarify the rules under which
clergy can claim a deduction for their residence, allow Revenue
Canada to release information about former registered charities
under certain conditions and exempt municipalities from filing
T4s for volunteers to whom they paid not more than $1,000.
1010
Another element of the tax reduction plan would help make
Canada's business income tax more internationally competitive.
Corporate tax rates would drop to 21% from 28% for businesses in
the highest tax sectors to make them more internationally
competitive, beginning with a one point tax cut effective January
1, 2001.
By the year 2005 the combined federal-provincial tax rate would
drop from the current average of 47% to 35%, five percentage
points lower than the U.S. This would put our businesses on a
more competitive level with other G-7 countries and serve to
attract investment and create jobs.
[Translation]
The plan also provides a tax deferred capital gains rollover for
investments in shares of certain small and medium size
businesses, and a 50% reduction of the capital gains inclusion
rate. Thus, the highest federal-provincial tax rate on capital
gains will be lower than the same combined rate in the United
States.
[English]
Increasing the employee stock option deduction from one-third to
one-half means employees in Canada would be taxed more favourably
on stock option benefits than employees in the United States. In
addition, the bill would allow the deferral of tax on certain
stock option benefits and an additional deduction for certain
stock option shares donated to charity.
Bill C-22 would ensure a comparable tax system for Canadian
banks and foreign bank branches operating here. It would
strengthen the thin capitalization rules, phase out the special
tax regime for non-resident owned investment corporations and
introduce a temporary 15% investment tax credit for grassroots
mineral exploration.
Technical amendments include extending the additional capital
tax on life insurance corporations until the end of 2000 and
clarifying the tax treatment of resource expenditures and the
rules governing gifts of ecologically sensitive land.
There are three remaining measures I will touch on briefly
before closing.
The first would introduce changes to the taxation of trusts and
their beneficiaries, in particular property distributed from a
Canadian trust to a non-resident beneficiary, mutual fund trusts,
health and welfare trusts and those governed by RRSPs and RRIFs.
[Translation]
New antiavoidance measures will ensure that transfers to trusts
cannot be used to unfairly reduce taxes.
[English]
The next measure would ensure that Canada retains the right to
tax immigrants on gains that accrue during their stay in Canada.
It would also clarify the effects of new taxpayer migration rules
on rights to future income and allow returning former residents
to unwind the tax effects of their departure regardless of how
long they were non-resident.
To avoid international double taxation, former residents would
be able to reduce Canadian tax payable on their pre-departure
gains by certain foreign taxes paid on the same gains.
Another measure would make advertising expenses in periodicals
with at least 80% original editorial content fully deductible and
those in other periodicals 50% deductible regardless of
ownership.
After July 1996 Canadian pension funds and other entities that
own Canadian newspapers qualify as Canadian citizens under the
ownership requirements of the Income Tax Act.
[Translation]
Before closing, I wish to mention that a number of amendments
were made to this bill in committee. On behalf of the
government, I wish to thank members of the Standing Committee on
Finance for their detailed examination of this bill.
[English]
Improvements have been made to several provisions, including
those affecting back to back loans, weak currency debts, foreign
accrual property income, partnerships, mortgage investment
corporations and segregated fund trusts, just to name a few.
Each of these amendments contributes to fairness in the tax
system.
1015
I remind the House that fiscal responsibility for government is
fundamental and tax cuts are essential. At the same time we are
committed to maintaining an effective, fair and technically valid
tax system. Without a doubt this is the thrust of Bill C-22.
[Translation]
This bill will implement the key features of the five year tax
reduction plan, which will lighten the tax burden on all
taxpayers, strengthen support for families with children, and
increase the competitiveness of the Canadian corporate tax
system internationally.
[English]
I urge all my hon. colleagues to keep in mind that Canadian
children need the Canada child tax benefit increases on July 1, a
fact that makes speedy passage of the bill essential.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to split my time
with the hon. member for North Vancouver.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ken Epp: I am honoured to stand in the House today to
speak to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Actually
it was the Liberal Party election act. Members will recall that
the finance minister announced most of the provisions that we are
dealing with today just days before the election was called. Of
course he had no idea that the election would be called four days
later. After he did his economic update and announced these
things in the House in October 2000, it came as a total surprise
to him that lo and behold the Prime Minister announced an
election.
I would like to begin by asking a simple rhetorical question. If
there are policies that are necessary just before an election,
how come those policies are not necessary between elections?
Therein lies a very important question.
We have dealt with it over and over. We dealt with it not long
ago when we were dealing with the equalization act. Suddenly it
was necessary to lift the cap. It was done because there was an
election coming. Believe it or not, the voters bought into it. A
whole bunch of them in Atlantic Canada replaced sitting members
with Liberal members because the Prime Minister said that the cap
would be lifted.
When the legislation came in we dealt with it in the House. We
did indeed lift the cap but for one year. We had some questions
about the whole equalization process. We thought it should be
revisited in order to look at it rationally because it was a very
convoluted system. The opposition parties suggested that if it
was good for an election year to lift the cap, it should be good
policy to lift the cap in the long term. The government said no
to that amendment.
All the Liberal members stood on command and voted against the
amendment. That is a curiosity to me. If it is good economic
policy we should be doing it, whether or not there is an
election. If it is not good economic policy then we should be
able to communicate to Canadian taxpayers why it cannot be done,
and hopefully they would then trust that we would be fiscally
responsible in managing their money properly. That is how we
would gain their support.
Now we have Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. It
goes on from there, but really it is a bill to enact the
provisions of the Liberal fall election campaign in 2000. Our
party is leaning toward supporting the direction the Liberals are
going in.
After many years, being a grassroots party and representing the
wishes and sometimes the demands of Canadian voters and
taxpayers, we brought to the House the wishes of Canadians on
fiscal matters.
1020
The Liberal government loves to tax and spend. It loves to take
money out of the pockets of taxpayers and then roll it out during
an election campaign so that hopefully it can stay in power,
which is its overarching principle. Four days before the
election was called the Liberals said that what the Canadian
Alliance was saying was right on. The polls told them that. If
they wanted to win the election, they had to do these things
during the election period so that they could get re-elected.
The government introduced a number of measures, some of which
are included in the bill. We are now debating what the
government promised, just by coincidence, four days before the
election was called.
I would like to say a little about those things. First I want
to give very low marks to the Liberals but high marks to their
communication department. They have spin doctors who work very
well. They are able to communicate with straight faces to the
Canadian people that there is a $100 billion tax cut. One
billion dollars is an awful lot of money and $100 billion is
massive. It boggles the mind.
I have sometimes used this example when I talk to students and
we talk about the way in which governments spend money, and the
way they tax and so on. Sometimes we also talk about the debt.
When the Liberals came into power they inherited a debt of around
$520 billion. They allowed it to grow to almost $580 billion.
We will be very fortunate if by the end of the government's
mandate, say in the year 2004, although the Prime Minister will
probably call an election in 2003, but certainly by the end of
2004, we will be back down to the debt level that we were in 1993
when it took power. However, the spin doctors are able to
convince Canadians that the Liberals are excellent stewards of
the public money. They are telling Canadians to trust them
because they will manage our money properly, notwithstanding that
the debt is much higher than it was when they took over.
I said that the magnitude is in the billions of dollars. I do
not have the exact numbers before me because I was not planning
on using this example. However, when I talk to students about $1
billion I ask them how long it would take them if they had to
spend $1 million at a rate of $1 per second? Some of them guess
a bit and then I tell them the answer. As I recall, if they
started at midnight on January 1 it would take them until January
11 or 12 before the money would be gone, approximately 11.5 days
to get rid of $1 million at $1 a second.
Then I ask them how long it would take them to spend $1 billion?
Again, they guess and then I tell them the answer. I tell them
that to spend $1 billion at the rate of $1 per second would take
until September, 31 years later. That is how long it would take
to get rid of $1 billion.
Here we have a government claiming through its spin doctors a
tax cut of $100 billion. That is spin doctoring at its finest.
The $100 billion includes a lot of money that it just decided not
to take.
I will give another example. Let us say I decided to give my
wife some money to spend on a house, which I know she would love,
and told her that I was going to give her $20,000 more than I
planned to give her. Under my breath I would mutter that I was
planning on taking $18,000 away from her.
She could say that $20,000 was great but the fact is it would
only be $2,000 because it would include the $18,000 that I was
going to take out of the housing fund.
1025
This is what the government has done. It is claiming $100
billion in tax relief, but included in that is a whole lot of
money that is represented by money that it could have taken but
which it has now decided not to take.
For example, a couple of years ago the government announced that
it was restoring indexation. There was no mention made of it
being retroactive, so perpetually taxpayers were still suffering
the removal of indexation on the tax rates over the last number
of years because the government flattened the thing out. We were
paying a whole lot more taxes because of bracket creep. When the
government reintroduced it, it started from the present position
and did not go back. Therefore, the errors of the previous years
continue to be perpetuated.
One of the things the government is claiming is that due to
indexation this is a tax cut. It is not a tax cut at all. The
government said that it would take $10,000 from each taxpayer and
now it is saying that it will only take $8,000. In that case,
the government is calling this a $2,000 tax cut but it is still
taking the $8,000. To call that a tax cut is inaccurate.
Furthermore, we have the child tax benefit. It is true that in
the legislation the child tax benefit would be increased but that
is not a tax cut. It is an expenditure. It is a case of the
government thinking of a way to spend some money on behalf of
families. In a way, I have some sympathy for that position but
it cannot properly or legitimately call it a tax cut. That is
spin doctoring and it is not acceptable in terms of the actual
message that is being put out there.
The bottom line is that the actual tax cut is not $100 billion.
It is actually closer to $50 billion and that is spread over five
years.
We have a whole bunch of questions with respect to the bill but
the government has decided to go ahead with it. We know its
members will vote for it and it will happen. I will concede that
families with children would get more money from the spending
program and so for them it is an advantage. For families without
children, such as in the case of my wife and I whose children are
grown up and have left home, there would be no tax cut. It is a
spin doctoring myth.
The bill also has implications in the area of tax rates. We
talk about the single tax rate. The opposition and some of the
other parties, and when I talk of opposition I mean the Liberals
who are in opposition to us, totally misrepresented what a single
tax rate does.
Our plan was to have one rate of tax at 17% and then
subsequently we revised it so that it would apply only to
$100,000 of taxable income. That still included all of the
present deductions. None of them were to be taken away. However,
instead of talking with Canadians and honestly debating its plan
versus ours, the government has totally distorted what it said
about our plan and then proceeded to knock it.
It is really an unfair thing. It is as if we have two car
dealers and one dealer, trying to promote his product, says that
the wheels fall off his competitor's cars as soon as they are
driven 10,000 kilometres. It is not true but that is what he
says would happen. He repeats it over and over again and then
asks, with great passion, whether the customer wants to buy a car
with wheels that fall off after being driven 10,000 kilometres.
The customer says, no, and the car dealer suggests that the
customer buy his car.
1030
That is what those Liberals did. I almost used a bad adjective,
but thankfully I caught myself. They took our plan, totally
distorted what it did, developed animosity against that
caricature of what we were proposing and asked Canadians to vote
for them.
There are still thousands of Canadians who want to trust their
governments. They want to trust their politicians. During an
election campaign when these things are said Canadians think that
if their trusted government leaders are saying something it must
be right so they therefore believe them.
I will take a ten second diversion to say that the same
distortions happened when the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration said what she said. That was a hurtful and total
distortion for a person like myself whose family members have
worked all around the world with people of all kinds of different
backgrounds, helping them. To be labelled the way the
immigration minister labelled us and then have Canadians say they
would not vote for us because we were scary is hurtful and wrong.
If we want Canadians to trust us we have to start dealing openly
and honestly with them. We have to tell them the truth and start
debating the Liberal proposal versus ours. That unfortunately
has not happened. I resent this.
I taught mathematics and computing for 31 years in my life prior
to becoming a parliamentarian and when people misuse math I get
just about as upset as I do when they describe me in pejorative
terms. The government had Canadians persuaded, and this is one
thing in the bill, that it would reduce the lower tax rate from
17% to 16%. It had the gall to go to Canadians, say it was
reducing the rate to 16% and claim that was even better than the
Canadian Alliance proposal.
However, it was worse than that. In every category, including
that first category at the low rate, our tax plan would have
given Canadian taxpayers a greater tax break. The reason was
simple. Even though our rate was 17%, it was on less of
taxpayers' income. We proposed, for example, that a two parent
family with two kids would not pay any income tax on the first
$26,000 of their earnings. The Liberals ignored that. They
ignored the fact that we would increase the exemption. All they
did was talk about the fact that they would reduce the lower rate
to 16% from 17%.
I resent it when people trade on a misrepresentation of
mathematical facts. This is what the government has done and
this is what we would be passing with Bill C-22. If we pass
the bill later today we would be approving the reduction of that
rate to 16%. Canadians would get a smaller tax break than
they would have had they voted for us because of the fact that
the Liberals have a great deal of expertise in messaging, in
telling people “this is what is” when in fact it is just the
opposite.
In passing Bill C-22 the Liberals ought to send out a press
release to say that while they would be reducing the income tax
rates and going from three levels to four, while they would be
decreasing the 17% rate to 16%, the 25% rate to 22%, the 29% rate
to 26%, and retaining the 29% rate for everything over $100,000,
there is something else. I would like that press release from
the Liberal government to also say in bold letters at the bottom
of the page “Please note that Canadians were hoodwinked into
voting for a party that proposed this bill and got it pushed
through the House and that it gives taxpayers a smaller tax break
than, first, they deserve, and second, what the Canadian Alliance
would have given them”. That is what the press release should
say. I am expecting the Minister of Finance to put that on the
bottom of the press release later today or next week when this
bill is finally passed.
I am sure that will happen. I see the parliamentary secretary
over there grinning from ear to ear, which of course shows
compliance with my present request.
1035
The fact of the matter is that a $100 billion tax cut is a $50
billion tax cut or even a little less if we look at how much the
taxes are actually being cut. The rest is spin doctoring. The
fact of the matter is that this would produce a tax cut smaller
than the tax cut we would have provided.
There are some other provisions in the bill with which I happen
to agree. There is a disability tax credit. There is also the
issue of children. Families have big expenses when raising
children. The government is going in the right direction here by
making it slightly easier for families, but it does not come
anywhere near recognizing the actual costs of raising children.
We would have substantially increased the deduction for children.
The government has not done that. The taxpayers would still pay
taxes on the money and if they qualify they get a tax credit.
Most people in the middle income bracket with two earners have
the promise of a child benefit for which they are not eligible.
Their taxes would stay the same. The government is not reducing
the taxes yet is announcing with this bill that taxes would be
reduced.
I regret that my time is up, Madam Speaker, but thank you for
giving me the time to express my views on the bill. I will vote
against the bill for the reasons I have articulated.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elk Island for such an
interesting speech. I would like to expand slightly on one of
his points. It has to do with the size of the debt. The fact is
that even after all these years of Liberal government and the
claims of fiscal responsibility the debt is still larger than
when the Liberals took office. Taxpayers are still paying $40
billion a year in interest.
My colleague talked about the examples he uses when he speaks at
high schools. There is one in the Vancouver area that I use to
illustrate the size of this $40 billion debt and what it really
means. It is fairly well known that right at the moment the
Lions Gate bridge is under reconstruction. To build a brand new
Lions Gate bridge would cost about $200 million. Canada could
build 200 brand new Lions Gate bridges every year with $40
billion.
Mr. Ken Epp: That's the interest.
Mr. Ted White: Yes, that is just the interest on the
debt. Imagine the amount of infrastructure that could be built
if we were not paying so much interest on the debt: 200 brand
new Lions Gate bridges every year. That is four every week, four
brand new highway bridges that could be built every week. These
are huge bridges, not just normal small highway bridges. This is
enough money to twin the freeway in Vancouver every month.
These are enormous amounts of money we are talking about and the
bill would do very little to reverse the legacy that really dates
back to the Trudeau days. All these problems that the bill would
take tiny little steps to address go back to the days of Trudeau.
I have an article here written by Michael Campbell, quite a well
known author in the Vancouver area, about the problems we have
today and how they relate to those days of Trudeau. It does
relate directly to the bill. I would like to read a little bit
from the article because it illustrates the size of the problem.
It was written on October 3, 2000, a little while after all the
public outpouring of grief after Mr. Trudeau's death. Michael
writes:
Trudeau is the godfather of Canada's interventionist government
policies regarding the economy. It was Trudeau who spearheaded
the drive for the “Just Society” through aggressive increases
in government spending and wealth distribution that led to Canada
leading the world in the growth of taxation.
It was the Trudeau government that brought Canada's federal
deficit from zero in 1968 to $38 billion by the time he left
office in 1984. It was the buildup of debt during the Trudeau
years that laid the foundation for today's $40 billion in
interest payments.
While socialists or Marxists might like to take credit for the
philosophical underpinnings of his economic policy, it was
Trudeau who put the thoughts into action.
In 1968 the federal government launched what was then called the
short-term bailout of the Cape Breton Coal Company—
1040
Do you remember that, Madam Speaker? It was a short term
bailout in 1968. In the year 2000, after $1.7 billion in
subsidies had been spent on that project, it was finally shut
down.
Michael Campbell continues:
It was during the Trudeau era that unemployment insurance
subsidies became a way of life for some in the Maritimes with the
results still well in evidence today.
Under Trudeau we got nationalization of companies and
industries. Canada curtailed foreign investment and exploded the
government bureaucracy.
But his legacy extends beyond specific economic policies into a
mindset that still dominates the landscape today in Canada.
We are still stuck with the problem that was built up in the
country during the Trudeau years, as Michael Campbell notes:
It was during the Trudeau years that the anti-business,
anti-success attitude—referred to by Nobel Prize-winner Robert
Mundell as the chief obstacle to our economic prosperity—took
hold and flourished.
Marketing all government policies as part of the pursuit of the
Just Society has permanently linked the concepts of government
intervention and justice in many people's minds.
We see the results today where opposition to extending
government programs is regularly regarded as a form of inactivity
at best and godlessness at worst.
As (the) Prime Minister...has told us regularly, only the
selfish and greedy want to lower taxes. Only the most
cold-hearted could oppose a national day-care program or business
subsidies.
What's interesting to note is that before we headed on the path
toward the Just Society, Canada had the second-highest economic
output per person in whole world.
This fact is important to note. Before we headed down the
Trudeau road we had the second highest economic output per person
in the whole world.
Michael Campbell continues:
The latest numbers from the OECD put us at 20th out of 29 in the
developed world. Our economy grew at an average pace of five per
cent, excluding inflation, before 1968, which is 40 per cent
higher than the average since.
Whatever economic indicator we look at since the Trudeau just
society began, we have gone downhill in economic performance
every way we measure it.
Michael Campbell says:
Our federal debt has grown from 0 to $750 billion, while our
currency has gone from being at par with the U.S. dollar—
It is below 65 cents today. How can anyone spin doctor it so
well? It is absolutely amazing to westerners that somehow there
is this line at the edge of Manitoba and everyone to the east of
it cannot see what is going on. They have bought into this
terrible scam that was started back in 1968 and has been
perpetuated.
As for the pursuit of the just society, poverty advocates tell
us that nothing has changed. There are more people in poverty
than there were before, which always leaves us somewhat startled
considering that so many Canadians continue to call for more of
the same policies.
The bill, as I have mentioned, would really just take tiny baby
steps to reverse that terrible Trudeau legacy that has led us to
where we are today. Also part of the Trudeau legacy is the
beginning of western alienation. It was Trudeau who gave us the
finger from the train in Kamloops many years ago. It was Trudeau
who started the national energy program that destroyed the
economy in Alberta.
Still to this day the west is not getting its fair share from
this Confederation. For example, my colleague from Elk Island
mentioned that there was recently a temporary increase in the
transfer payments, but he did not mention that more than half of
that went to Quebec, which somehow still manages to portray
itself as a have not province.
It is totally ludicrous that this situation exists. I know from
working here on the Hill that practically every product we use,
every service we obtain, is supplied by Quebec. The pens and
pencils, the paper, the water supplies, the computers, the people
who work here: just about everything comes from Quebec. This
shows that the Quebec economy is extremely well diversified.
They build automobiles. They have manufacturing plants for
aluminum extrusion. They export electric power. It is a
complete mystery to me that it is a have not province. It is
certainly a mystery to the people out west who are receiving less
than their fair share of the transfers.
1045
For example, spending in B.C. by the federal government is
comprised of direct goods and services expenditures as well as
transfers to individuals in the form of EI payments, pensions and
so on. However the one area of spending that is 100% under the
control of the government is the procurement of goods and
services.
If we look at the data from 1992 to 1998, and that is the latest
year for which we have figures available, on average the federal
government spent about $3 billion on goods and services in B.C.
in each of those years. Our share, based on the population,
should have been between $4 billion and $4.5 billion. That
difference amounts to a shortfall for B.C. in goods and services
alone of $9.5 billion in just six years.
Worse still, no attempt has been made by the Liberal government
to correct the problem. It has kept that figure stagnated
between $1 billion and $1.5 billion steadily since 1993. It has
done nothing, not a thing to increase it.
In a typical year, taking into account all federal transfers to
the province of British Columbia, we receive about $1.7 billion
less than Ottawa collects in revenues from B.C. For example, in
1998 the following differences can be found between British
Columbia's actual share of expenditures and the hypothetical
share based on population.
We had a goods and services procurement shortfall of $1.178
billion, almost a $1.2 billion shortfall. We had a shortfall in
transfers to persons of $40.4 million and we had a transfer to
business shortfall of $89.89 million.
In addition, because B.C. is rated as a have province despite
our awful NDP government and the terrible deficits that it runs,
we received approximately $1.1 billion less in direct transfers
to the provincial government.
Of course it is no secret that B.C., Alberta and Ontario all
contribute to the so-called equalization transfers to
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
P.E.I. and Newfoundland. Quebec is the strange one and how it
still qualifies as a have not province despite its productivity
is a mystery.
I noticed recently that the government of Quebec announced a tax
holiday for some types of business. Equalization transfers are
supposed to be based on the government's inability to raise
sufficient revenues from its residents, so how can a government
justify giving tax reductions to some businesses and at the same
time saying it cannot raise enough taxes so it wants more
equalization payments?
I suppose in theory the government of B.C. could reduce all the
taxes to zero for its constituents and then say that it cannot
raise any money from its constituents and ask Ottawa to transfer
all the money back to it. It is a ludicrous equalization program
in which we find ourselves entangled. It does not make sense at
all.
It is interesting to note the fiscal outflow from B.C. caused by
the weak federal spending on goods and services. It is not only
proportionately higher than any other province, but it is higher
in absolute numbers of dollars. We receive $295 less per capita
than any other province. It is just not fair.
With the Prime Minister regularly saying that westerners would
get a better deal if they voted Liberal, I hate to think of the
mess we would be in today if that had happened. When we look at
that federal debt and the way it was exploding in 1993, I well
remember the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives calling
us extremists because we wanted to balance the budget back in
1993 with our zero in three plan that we promoted in 1993 to get
the government's fiscal policies under control.
At that time every government in the country was running
deficits. The federal government was running $40 billion
deficits a year and we were called extremists for wanting to fix
that problem. The government and the Progressive Conservatives
scared people by saying we were extremists.
1050
We managed to get 54 members into the House. We made the
difference because today when we look across the country there is
not a government, federal or provincial, that does not want to
balance its budget. All of the credit, 100% of the credit for
that goes to the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance
for taking it from extremism to being mainstream.
Anybody who tries to claim that it was the Liberal government
that did it is misinformed or misinforming because it was not the
Liberal government that did it.
The way to correct western alienation is not for more people to
vote Liberal. It is for the government over there to stop the
scare tactics, to stop the distortion of facts and to start
looking at what is best for the country. What is best for the
country is not what is contained in the bill. It is a sham, a
complete sham.
As my hon. colleague said, we will end up at the end of this
term with more debt to pay and with $40 billion a year in
interest payments. If we had followed the Reform Party plan that
was promoted in 1993, we would already have significantly paid
down our debt. We would be in the range of $30 billion a year in
interest payments, freeing up $10 billion a year to spend on
infrastructure and other programs.
It is frankly dishonest to present the bill to the House and
accuse us of holding it up when we are trying to take our
entitled time to show the people of Canada exactly what is going
on.
The bill is not only a sham. It adds to the complexity of the
tax act. Every one of us in this place gets complaints from our
constituents about the complexity of the tax act. There is
hardly anybody who can even do their own tax returns any more;
they have to hire an accountant or a specialist to do them. The
Canadian Alliance promoted, which should be included in Bill
C-22, a reduction in the complexity rather than an increase in it
once again.
My colleague from Elk Island mentioned briefly how the numbers
actually do not tell the whole truth. In my finishing minutes I
would like to go over those numbers quickly.
The government claims a $100.5 billion gross tax reduction, but
when we take off $3.2 billion over five years for social spending
because of the child tax benefit, which is really spending and
not a tax reduction; when we take off the $29.5 billion over five
years for increased CPP premiums; and when we take off the $20.7
billion over five years for cancelled tax hikes due to
indexation, we end up with $41.7 billion in tax relief over five
years.
That is better than nothing. We are pleased that at least there
is some. It certainly is not honest to portray it the way it has
been on the other side of the House. The biggest problem we
still have is the size of the debt and the size of the annual
interest payments which, as I said at the beginning of my speech,
could build 200 brand new Lions Gate bridges every year.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I did have a different introduction to make, but after
listening to my colleague from the Alliance I thought it might be
important to point out to him and other hon. members of the House
that the first government in Canada to balance the budget was an
NDP government in Saskatchewan after some horrendous budgetary
practices by the prior Progressive Conservative government.
We were the first ones. There were terrible practices by the
prior government. It was a right of centre government, by the
way. We take some pride in having been able to do that and,
quite frankly, in the history of the administration of the
finances of that province all the way back to when it was led by
Premier Tommy Douglas.
1055
I rise today to speak in opposition to the passage of this bill
and wish to do so from a number of perspectives. I will start
with the issue of the environment as that is my responsibility as
critic for my party.
Earlier this week we had the opportunity to come together as a
House on an issue proposed by the Progressive Conservatives with
regard to the protection of water in Canada. All members of the
House, with the exception of the Bloc, supported that motion and
rightfully so.
When we look at these budgetary items we cannot help but realize
the height of hypocrisy when the government side proposes that
our finances be handled in this way. At the same time it ignores
to a very significant degree the responsibilities of the
government to provide necessary financing for a municipal
infrastructure program to deal with the crisis facing Canada with
regard to providing safe water for all citizens.
We see figures from the municipalities on what it will cost to
treat our water and our sewage. The type of dollars they are
talking about are no way reflected in the budgetary items before
us. The figure proposed by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities is $16.5 billion. The allocation from the
government for all types of municipal infrastructure is only $2.5
billion over six years, which is simply not enough.
I would like to present some statistics on the situation leading
up to the financial statement. In the decade from 1989 to 1998
there has been a dramatic shift in wealth and we have seen the
impact it has had on family incomes. If we break down by 20
percentiles all families in Canada, the statistics show that from
1989 to 1998 the families at the lower end of the scale dropped
in income quite dramatically.
The poorest level dropped 17% in earning abilities in that
period of time. The lower middle income group dropped 13%. The
middle income group dropped 4%. The upper middle income group
went up by 1%. The top end families that earned $114,000 in 1989
went up to $124,000, or a 9% increase, in 1998.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANNES FESTIVAL
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to join all Canadians in congratulating the
makers of Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, which has been
selected for screening in the non-competitive un certain
regard section at this year's Cannes Festival.
Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner is Zacharias Kunuk's first
feature film and Canada's first Inuit language feature film. It
is an exciting action thriller set in ancient Igloolik and
produced in Nunavut by an Inuit company using local cast and
crew.
[Translation]
In addition, a France-Canada coproduction entitled La répétition,
along with The truth in advertising, a short film by Torontonian
Tim Hamilton, have been nominated for a Palme d'or award in the
best feature film and best short film categories respectively.
1100
Other Canadian films will also be shown in the festival during
international critics' week. They are the first feature length
film by Quebec producer Bernard Raymond, La femme qui boit, and
the France-Canada coproduction entitled Le pornographe. We can
be proud—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
* * *
[English]
OTTAWA TAXIS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
since I have been a member of parliament, now a little over seven
years, there has been a curious thing happening here in Ottawa
and I would just like to draw the members' attention to it.
When we go to the airport, the taxis can only carry passengers
in one direction. There is somehow a rule somewhere that says
one company gets the right to haul passengers from the airport
into Ottawa and the other companies haul passengers from Ottawa
to the airport. Therefore, every other cab is empty.
This has huge implications to costs. Some of these taxi drivers
running empty half the time are making very little money. They
are not able to pay as much taxes. It is definitely tough on the
environment because we have all these vehicles spewing exhaust
gases.
I think, if the federal government were responsible, it would
look into this and not only give permission but require taxis to
carry passengers in both directions.
* * *
[Translation]
RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on July 1,
Canada Post will be issuing a stamp commemorating the former
Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
It is no mere accident that the date of July 1 was chosen, it
being the national day of this country, Canada, to which Mr.
Trudeau has left such a great legacy.
It would be hard to list all of his accomplishments, but among
them are the Official Languages Act, the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and patriation of the Canadian Constitution,
not forgetting his contribution to our foreign policy, to
improving the status of women and native people, and to
promoting the French fact in Canada.
I congratulate Canada Post on this initiative to commemorate the
contribution to this country by a great man, Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, recently selected as the Canadian personality of the
century.
* * *
CANADIAN MUSEUMS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 3 the
Government of Canada launched the second edition of the Canadian
Museum Treasure Hunt.
This is an interactive learning game on the Internet, created to
celebrate International Museum Day, which falls this year on May 18.
Through the treasure hunt, young people can discover 23 Canadian
museums. Its purpose is to encourage young people to visit
museums and learn about Canada and the world.
I invite young Canadians, as well as the not so young, to join
in this ingenious treasure hunt by visiting the websites of the
Department of Canadian Heritage and Virtual Museum Canada.
Have fun, everyone.
* * *
[English]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am proud to congratulate the six outstanding students in my
riding who have been awarded millennium scholarships for 2001-02.
The students are Stacey Chiu and Khanh Nguyen from Windermere
Secondary School, Steven Co from Vancouver College, Jatinder Man
from St. John's School, Esther Tain from Burnaby South Secondary,
and William Wu from Charles Tupper Secondary School.
Those six students have worked hard to achieve those
scholarships. I hope all members of the House will join me in
congratulating them and indeed all scholarship winners from
across the country.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Mike Harris government has done it again. Since
1995 it has continued to produce tax cutting, deficit reducing
budgets that have put Ontario back on track. The most recent
budget is no exception. It took the first steps toward
eliminating the job killing capital tax, and Ontario's tax
incentives are being completely reviewed.
I am especially thrilled that the Ontario government took the
principled and courageous decision to recognize the enormous
sacrifice and the public good done by tens of thousands of
Ontario families who, for reasons of conscience and obligation,
send their children to independent schools and pay for those
schools with after tax dollars, many of these families with very
modest means and incomes.
1105
The refundable tax credit for receiptable independent school
expenses announced yesterday is a policy that the Canadian
Alliance has promoted. We are delighted to see that the Mike
Harris government, against the shrill voices of the Liberal
opposition and the big union special interests in Ontario, has
decided that parents should be able to decide what is in the best
interests of their children, and they should not be penalized for
doing so. We want to commend Jim Flaherty.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
Saturday, May 12, is International Nurses Day. The theme for
2001 is “Nurses, always there for you: united against violence”.
This will be an opportunity for us and Canadians to recognize
the important work these health care professionals do for each
of us and all of society. Whether they work here or abroad,
nurses make a difference in the quality of care provided.
With the new developments in health care, they are increasingly
called on to work together with other professionals in health
care. Their expertise and know-how often make them the central
workers in the community. In the current context of resource
shortages, they are creative and innovative.
I wish all nurses an excellent day.
* * *
SOCIÉTÉ LITTÉRAIRE DE LAVAL
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
May 4, the Société littéraire de Laval, with its honourary
president, Quebec poet Joël Des Rosiers, announced the names of
the 11 winners of its second annual literary competition.
This initiative recognizes the talent and work of those who have
the writing bug. Through the magic of prose or poetry, they
breathe life into characters, set the scene, kindle emotions.
We often see ourselves reflected in what they have to say.
This year's winners are tomorrow's writers. Whether they be
called Dominic Gagné, Andrée Proulx, Alexandre Piché or Tania
Langlais, they are a wonderful illustration of the exceptional
commitment of the Société littéraire de Laval, which has had a
soft spot for words for the past 16 years.
I am proud to congratulate all the participants in this
competition, including the 150 college students. To the
winners, I tip my hat, and to the Société littéraire, I offer my
thanks for its work in developing vitality and excellence in the
French language, at home, in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
CATHOLIC CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to extend my congratulations to the crusaders of Catholic
Central High School in London on their 50th anniversary.
As an alumnus I am proud that I attended CCH and I also had the
privilege to teach and coach there for 10 years.
Alumni from across the country attended the reunion last
Saturday and reminisced about past times. Catholic Central was
originally London's only Roman Catholic high school and has
produced many outstanding citizens in all walks of life.
Archbishop Peter Sutton, a former teacher at CCH, was the guest
speaker.
I was joined by my provincial counterpart, the MPP for
London—Fanshawe, Frank Mazzilli. The mayor of London, Anne
Marie DeCicco represented city council. Both of these leaders
are also CCH grads.
May Catholic Central enjoy a very successful second 50 years.
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are all saddened by the continuing
violence in the Middle East. In the past few weeks we saw
a four month old Palestinian baby killed by a missile strike and
two young Israeli teenagers kidnapped and murdered. The cycle of
violence must end.
The Canadian Alliance supports the right of the state of Israel
to exist within safe and secure borders and the right of
Palestinian people to negotiate for self-government through the
peace process. We condemn any terrorism on any side of this
complicated conflict.
We also call for the Government of Canada to be more open and
transparent in its foreign policy development.
I want to assure all Canadians that this remains my position,
the position of our party, and reflects my speech earlier this
week.
I also wish to reiterate my great respect and friendship for
members of all of Canada's religious and cultural communities
with whom I and my party have worked hard to forge common ground
on issues such as immigration, tax reform, support for the family
and tax relief for parents who wish to educate their children in
their own religious and cultural traditions.
We look forward to maintaining and enhancing our relationships
with all these groups and individuals.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA HEALTH DAY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that tomorrow, May 12,
is Canada Health Day.
[English]
Canada Health Day is held each year on the anniversary of the
birth of Florence Nightingale, and is jointly sponsored by the
Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Healthcare
Association.
[Translation]
Together, let us wish an excellent Canada Health Day to the
Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Healthcare
Association, their members, their staff, their volunteers and
their associates.
[English]
I ask all members to please join me in wishing the Canadian
Public Health Association and the Canadian Healthcare Association
a very successful Canada Health Day.
* * *
1110
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
three years ago a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation study
concluded that the cost of providing safe drinking water in
Canada would be $4 billion a year over 15 years. Canadians are
looking to their elected representatives to give them
reassurances that the water they drink is safe.
New Democrats across the country are working on this. Last
month in British Columbia the NDP government passed the drinking
water protection act. It provided an additional $11 million in
new funding and enforceable standards, despite the objections of
the B.C. Liberal Party.
In Ontario New Democrat Marilyn Churley has introduced a private
member's bill to ensure Ontarians that they can trust the quality
of the water they drink. Both of these pieces of legislation
provide a framework for public disclosure and ensure the public
has the right to know the results of water testing.
It is time the government follows suit by providing national
standards for drinking water and an adequate infrastructure
funding program.
* * *
[Translation]
MOTHERS' DAY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to remind this House that Sunday is Mothers' Day.
This is a most important day, because it gives each of us an
opportunity to show our attachment and our gratefulness to our
mother. Our mothers are a source of inspiration. They never fail
to display their courage, their love and their organizing
skills.
Who has never phoned his or her mother in a panic to get a
recipe? Mothers also show their kindness, their determination
and their strength.
Their contribution to our society is invaluable. On Sunday, let
us think about the tremendous influence of our mother in our
personal life and let us thank her.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to thank my
mother, Yolande Bélanger, for the values that she instilled in
me. I will be forever grateful to her.
* * *
[English]
ACADIA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Acadia
University in my riding of Kings—Hants will graduate 750
students this weekend. These students, along with honorary
degree recipients, the Hon. William Hoyt, Reverend William E.
O'Grady, Mr. Hector Jacques and Col. Ian S. Fraser, will forever
be connected to a university with a reputation second to none.
The Maclean's annual ranking of universities has again
declared Acadia the most innovative and once again the best
overall undergraduate university in Canada. Acadia has also
placed first in the leaders of tomorrow and most innovative
categories. This marks the fifth consecutive year that Acadia
has been considered the most innovative.
Acadia has been honoured by the Smithsonian, has received the
Canadian information productivity award and recently was the only
Canadian university to receive a pioneer award, an award that
recognizes outstanding commitment to the creation of a
successful, ubiquitous learning environment.
The launch of the Acadia advantage program has been a key factor
in Acadia's success. This program connects students, faculty and
staff to a campus wide network. I hope the Canadian fund for—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Minister of Transport and the very serious Minister of Finance
accused the separatists of being the reason for the problems of
Mirabel and Dorval Airports. What arrogance.
The federal government is the one responsible
for the decision two decades ago to make Toronto the Canadian
hub of international flights. That same government penalized
Dorval and Mirabel in allocating routes to Asia.
It sure takes a lot of nerve for a Minister of Transport from
Toronto, backed up by an aspiring Prime Minister from Montreal,
to lecture to us.
There is a response to this arrogance, and it is Quebec
sovereignty. A sovereign Quebec will negotiate its own
international routes and will do everything possible to make the
airports of Quebec a model of cost-effectiveness and efficiency.
Quebec sovereignty, that is the answer.
* * *
[English]
TEACHING AWARDS
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister participated in
an awards ceremony recognizing the teaching profession.
1115
The Prime Minister's awards for teaching excellence recognizes
teachers across the country. Some 65 teachers, men and women who
teach subjects as varied as Spanish, music and mathematics and
using innovative methods to inspire youngsters to learn, received
this award yesterday.
An innovative society needs the next generation of youngsters to
be educated. I congratulate these teachers. We give them full
recognition and appreciation for their work as they go back into
the classroom to inspire future generations.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let me tell Canadians how far the government will go to
empty the purses or wallets of Canadians. A senior in my riding
cashed in a life insurance policy he had held since 1935 so he
could buy a computer.
Cashing in that $3,187 life insurance policy reduced his old age
security by $1,400 per year, his Alberta seniors benefit by $648,
and increased his federal and provincial taxes by $686. His rent
which had been subsidized according to his usual income level
increased by $50. The $3,187 windfall set in motion a chain of
events that put him $161 in the hole.
I will be introducing a private member's bill that will allow
seniors a one time windfall of up to $10,000 that will not be
subject to clawback by federal programs.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more reports and
assessments which the government has received from outside
economists and organizations in recent weeks. These are very
disturbing to taxpayers.
One of Canada's most respected economists, Dale Orr of WEFA, is
warning today that for the fiscal year just ended federal
spending will be about $2 billion more than expected.
How can the government pretend that we are not on track for a
deficit or possible higher taxes when its spending is wildly
exceeding even the finance minister's own projections? How can
it deny we are not on track for a deficit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have met and achieved our targets in the past. This
is evidence that we will meet our targets in future.
Certainly our spending commitments will be carried out in a
fiscally responsible manner and in keeping with our usual prudent
budgeting process.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is right on one thing. They have
grossly exceeded their spending targets. They are way over.
It is very clear, as a former economist and now the member for
Markham said as far back as last November, that the government
through its wild spending would be eating into its contingency
reserve. That account is there to protect Canadians, should
there be unexpected downturns.
How can the government justify wild spending plans which cut
into the very savings account that is supposed to be there to
protect Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not have wild spending plans. We have prudent
plans to make key investments in matters of importance to
Canadians like health care, research and higher education. Why
does the hon. member oppose helping Canadians in these key areas?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they are wildly exceeding their
spending plans. The Canadian Alliance said as far back as last
November that there would be a possible deficit within three
years. Just this week economists are saying the same.
The finance minister has said he would only bring out a mini
update covering the next two years. In November he promised
taxpayers everything was fine on a five year projection. He is
not talking five years any more, just two.
Is he afraid of what lurks in that three year window, which is a
deficit according to economists? Will he bring in a five year
plan, not a two year one?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I recall it is customary for the Minister of Finance
to successfully make his forecasts on a two year basis. Doing
that is not a change from the past.
Speaking of economists, Tim O'Neill, chief economist of the Bank
of Montreal in today's Toronto Star said:
I don't think they (the government) are going to have any
problems avoiding a deficit for the foreseeable future.
He went on to say, as quoted in the National Post:
1120
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, while we are quoting economists, perhaps the Deputy
Prime Minister noticed that Dale Orr from WEFA said that things
would get pretty tight between 2003 and 2005 and that was why it
was very important to make sure spending was well restrained.
The government was more than $2 billion over budget for the last
fiscal year. In the month of March, the last month of the fiscal
year, the government spent 70% more than the average for the
other 11 months of the fiscal year. It was March madness taking
over.
How can the government say that it has spending under control,
when it threw billions out of the window in the last month of the
year to satisfy its political agenda?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our spending is restrained and we are on target. We are
exceeding the commitments we are making. We are not over budget.
As evidence of this from an outside source, Craig Wright, chief
economist of the Royal Bank is quoted in the National Post
today as saying:
Everything this government has done in the past would suggest we
don't have to worry about a deficit.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has repeatedly criticized the
government's practice of March madness where ministers and
departments blow billions out the door in order to spend it
before the end of the fiscal year when the finance minister claws
it back.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why his government
continues to ignore these warnings from the auditor general? Why
did it announce $16 billion of spending in the last month, in the
dying days of the fiscal year just closed? Why did we spend 70%
more in March than in any month in the rest of the year? Why is
that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the hon. member not respond to the quote I just
gave from the chief economist of the Royal Bank? He cannot do
that because the chief economist of the Royal Bank was right when
he said:
Everything this government has done in the past would suggest we
don't have to worry about a deficit.
Why is the hon. member criticizing our spending to carry out our
commitments to Canadians to improve health care, higher
education. and research and development? Once again the chief
spokesman of the Alliance Party is on the record as opposing
these important initiatives for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no
doubt about our need for legislation against organized crime.
However, support is far from unanimous for the immunity the
minister plans to grant to police forces, without judiciary
intervention. Both the Quebec and Canadian bar associations
find this approach excessive.
Is the minister aware that this aspect of the anti-gang bill can
lead to excesses and slip-ups that will lead to a loss of
confidence by the public in their police?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised at this line of
questioning from the hon. member. If we want the police to fight
crime, we need to give them the tools to fight crime. The member
for Berthier—Montcalm was prepared to give the police power to
commit murder.
The government will not allow that. What we will do, and we
will not apologize for it, is give the police the powers to fight
crime in this country.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice's words yesterday were very disquieting.
Today, it is the solicitor general who is not being in the least
reassuring toward the population of Quebec and Canada.
Is the Minister of Justice going to acknowledge that, in the
case of search warrants and electronic surveillance, the
tradition to which she referred is to involve the justice system
in the investigation stage, precisely so as to avoid excesses
and slip-ups?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a number of times in the
House, the bill outlines strict limits and controls on the use of
this power and has direct political accountability.
What the government wants to do and what I would think all
members of the House want to do is to give the police the tools
to do the job.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
be clear. The Bloc Quebecois has always wanted tough anti-gang
legislation. It was even the first, in 1995, to introduce a
bill designed to more effectively combat organized crime. But
the bill now being proposed extends the notion of police
immunity to all criminal investigations, instead of limiting it
to investigations dealing exclusively with organized crime.
1125
Will the Minister of Justice agree that she is completely
ignoring the well-known conclusions of the Keable and McDonald
commissions by allowing police forces to authorize themselves to
commit criminal offences in the course of their infiltration
activities, which is unacceptable?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, his
party is calling for legislation with teeth. But his question
suggests that they want to remove those teeth.
Why does the Bloc Quebecois want to do this and make it harder
for us to successfully fight crime throughout the country?
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, do the
Liberal tradition and the democratic practices the Minister of
Justice was boasting about in the House yesterday consist in
allowing the government to become politically involved in police
investigations, in which case we on this side say shame?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the judges will not be involved in
political investigations in this country. Politicians will not
be involved in investigations in this country.
This bill will give the police the tools they need to fight
crime in this country, and this government will never apologize
for giving the police the tools to do the job.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, both the
environment and the health ministers insist they stand behind the
joint action group, the local committee charged with directing
the Sydney tar ponds cleanup process. JAG with one voice has
demanded residents in the contaminated area be relocated
urgently.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. If the
government stands behind JAG, why is it not implementing as an
urgent priority the relocation of those residents?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question comes from the partial
nature of the preamble she gave. It omitted a number of
important facts.
As she should be well aware, we awaiting the report of the
consultant on this very subject, which was expected this week and
now is expected next week. As the premier of the province, as my
hon. friend the Minister of Health and as local residents of the
joint action group have made clear, we think it is important to
wait until we have the basis upon which we should move rather
than moving prior to receiving the information.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
joint action group has made it absolutely clear that the
residents must be relocated. The government is not standing
behind JAG; it is hiding behind JAG.
Every time leadership is needed the government thinks of another
reason for delay. The federal government is the only partner
with the resources to get the job done, both the relocation and
the cleanup. The minister knows that no cleanup can take place
until the residents are relocated. What is the government
waiting for?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again I find it surprising that a member who
has served in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia should be
so insultingly dismissive of the correct position taken by the
people elected to Nova Scotia legislature.
The fact is that we will have the agreement of the parties based
upon proper scientific information. She claims that we do not
need proper scientific information. She claims we should proceed
regardless of the experts. It is her privilege to ignore the
province and the local people, but we expect to abide by the
agreements we have made both with the province and the local
people.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Since the
moratorium hundreds of millions of dollars have been dumped into
Atlantic Canada in fisheries diversification and Atlantic
partnerships, a lot of it through the minister's department.
However a lot of that money cannot be reinvested in the fishery,
yet the fishery is the best job generator in Atlantic Canada.
Does the minister not think his department should probably look
at investing more money in the fishery in research, in
experimental equipment, in marketing, and I suppose—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of state.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for St. John's West for his question. I agree completely
with him.
At ACOA we are spending a lot of energy working with the
industry in export development, new manufacturing and added value
training.
1130
Team Canada, which will include fisheries business people from
his province, will be taking a mission to Atlanta. We are also
working very closely with the aquaculture industry as a new and
developing industry. We have had great success in the
development of new technologies and new species in Newfoundland.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the minister of fisheries who
administers the great lucrative shrimp resource off the coast of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The minister has a whole lineup of people looking for quotas.
Does the minister not think that it is about time his department,
and the government generally, said to those who are looking to us
for such quotas “I will give you the resource provided you show
me how you will create jobs onshore”?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me
notice on this question. He is absolutely right. The northern
shrimp is extremely important for Newfoundland and Labrador, as
well as the maritime provinces.
The hon. member knows that there has been a huge increase in the
harvesting of that resource, from just 37,000 tonnes five years
ago to 112,000 tonnes. There are always pressures to exploit
more of that resource, but we must ensure that any decisions we
make are sustainable and that the resource can be taken advantage
of for many years ahead.
My decision will be based—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as Canada's national broadcaster, the
CBC has a responsibility to be accessible to all Canadians. Why
is the CBC withdrawing service from rural Canadians?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage has chosen to undertake a study on
the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. It will work for
the next 18 months. We will wait for its report and then pick it
up from there.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, service in small or remote locations
is poor and getting worse. Taxpayers in my riding, less than two
hours away from Ottawa, cannot receive an over the air signal, as
is the case in the rest of rural Canada from coast to coast.
Will the minister direct the CBC to use the $60 million in
additional funding to maintain transmission infrastructure rather
than fuel a fire sale of assets, which is the current plan?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe I should call the hon. member the
new member for flip-flop, because the Alliance was against
funding CBC.
We will take on our responsibilities. We will wait for the
committee report and then pick it up from there.
* * *
[Translation]
URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in June 2000, the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services met a group of elected city officials from
the Quebec City area, where recognition of constitutional status
was raised as a possibility for municipalities.
Are the remarks of the minister an indication that the
government intends to reopen the constitutional file and thus
justify the infringement of areas of Quebec's jurisdiction?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, it is not the intention of the
government to infringe on anything.
We always honour political jurisdictions. This is what the
Government of Canada does, and the member opposite knows that
for a fact.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the past is an indication of the future.
Can the recent remarks by the Minister of Transport and the
creation of an urban affairs committee be interpreted as the
first steps to constitutional reform, aimed once again at
centralizing all powers in Ottawa, in defiance of Quebec's
jurisdictions?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has a very fertile
imagination, to say the least.
The Prime Minister's caucus task force on issues important to
Canadians living in an urban context is entirely reasonable.
It is a good thing to do. It was even something that everyone
wanted, including city dwellers, just like the equivalent
committee looking into rural issues set up a few weeks earlier.
It is the same thing.
* * *
1135
[English]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
treasury board guidelines on sole source contracting are very
simple: that there is a pressing emergency, that the contract is
valued at less than $25,000, that it is not in the public
interest to solicit bids, or that only one person or firm is
capable of performing the work.
Therefore, there are only two possible reasons why the
government gave a $615,000 sole source contract to Groupaction:
Either it was not in the public interest to solicit bids, because
the company was a major Liberal donor, or because the work was
done by Groupaction in the first place it was the only one
capable of evaluating. Either way it is questionable. Which is
it?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to note that the member is incorrect. The contract to
Groupaction was not sole sourced. Groupaction was a qualified
advertiser available to the department for utilization on
specific contracts.
The work done by Groupaction was not in fact an evaluation of a
past project. It was an identification of additional important
opportunities for Canada to present Canadians with the services
and programs available to all Canadians.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary maintains that this was not
a sole source contract since the government picked from a source
list of prequalified firms. I do not see the difference.
Would it not stand to reason then that Groupaction would have
been disqualified from this list since it had done the original
work in the first place? If it did not evaluate, what did it do?
If there is really no problem with this contract why not release
its findings? What is the government trying to hide?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me repeat. First, Groupaction is a qualified advertising firm.
Sixteen agencies competed or were granted qualification after a
competition. The particular contract involved was amended from
evaluation and identification to simply identification of
sponsorship opportunities. That is exactly what Groupaction did
on behalf of the Government of Canada in accordance with the
contract as amended.
* * *
[Translation]
MONETARY UNION
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance wondered why Quebec's
referendum legislation of 1995 suggested that, following a vote
in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, the Canadian dollar would
remain the currency used in that province.
There were two reasons for this: first, the dollar belongs to
Quebecers as much as it belongs to Canadians and, second, this
legislation provided that the Canadian dollar would be the
currency having legal tender in Quebec following a yes vote.
Since then, the world situation has evolved. There was the Euro
currency and now the FTAA issue. The only one in Canada who has
not evolved is the Minister of Finance.
I would like him to tell me why he is so stubborn and
narrow-minded that he will not even consider having a single
currency for the three Americas?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who, at the meeting with the Governor of the
Bank of Canada, said “Mr. Governor, it is not the floating system
I object to, far from it. I think it is the right way to go”.
Also, Mr. Dodge said that in the context of a common currency,
Canada would have absolutely no influence on North America's
monetary policy.
Why does the sovereignist party want to transfer our monetary
sovereignty to Washington?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
because the Governor of the Bank of Canada has no power to
determine the value of the Canadian dollar, or interest rates.
He is already doing what Washington does.
Therefore, why does the government persist in keeping a minor
currency, which is the victim of speculators, which in turn
creates instability in business planning, while everywhere else
in the three Americas, they are talking about a possible single
currency?
Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada agrees. Yesterday,
Thomas Courchene described those who are not thinking about this
issue now as dinosaurs.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we really do know the motivation
of the Bloc to attack the dollar. The dollar is a pillar of
Canada and a signal of Canadian unity.
For the member to insult our dollar in the way that he has is an
insult to Canadians. Our dollar has in fact been strong against
every other currency and has done better against the U.S. dollar
than many other currencies.
1140
I would remind the member that the government has said that it
is committed to a sovereign Canadian dollar and we will stick to
that.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
in giving testimony to the finance committee yesterday, several
of Canada's leading economists suggested that the current surplus
position of the government gives it a perfect opportunity to make
fundamental, needed changes to the tax system. This would
promote investment, employment and economic growth.
Will the government use this opportunity to strengthen our
productivity, economy and investment and thereby improve the
status of our lowly Canadian dollar?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify some of
the numbers that have been thrown around in the House.
In regard to the year in question, where some have questioned
whether we would go into deficit, I should point out that this
government and this finance minister have been very strong in
building in prudence. In fact in that year there is $6.5 billion
of fiscal cushion.
If we look at the red book commitments, over four years they are
$5.9 billion. We do not have a problem with any deficits. In
fact many economists were cited here in the House earlier. Tax
reform is maybe something down the road, but we do not have any
problem with deficits moving forward.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I guess that shows the flaw of reading the answer to the
question he thought I would ask.
Integrating earned income with dividend income for tax purposes
is a very necessary measure. This is an ideal time to do this
since it can be done with tax cuts rather than with tax
increases. Will the minister do this?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again we have the other side of
the House wanting their cake and eating it too. They want us to
deal with any looming, alleged deficits and yet want us to cut
taxes as well.
Canadian productivity has actually been picking up in the last
couple of years. We have set the fiscal climate: We are cutting
taxes, we are paying down the debt and the business community is
responding. In fact investment in machines and equipment and
investment in some of the high technology equipment is happening
at a very strong pace and our productivity will keep that upward
track.
I think those members should have more confidence in the
Canadian economy than they have in their leader.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we can see on Parliament Hill, the tourist season has
begun. Many Canadians will also be travelling overseas and
Canadians can expect overseas visitors.
With this in mind, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what the
government is doing to enhance public awareness of the need to
prevent foot and mouth disease from entering the country?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
agree with the hon. member that it is extremely important for our
federal government to remain vigilant in our efforts to keep
Canada free of foot and mouth disease. We have all seen on
television how this disease has ravaged the livestock industry in
the European Union and around the world.
Our government has launched a public awareness campaign to
engage the support and the co-operation of all Canadians,
particularly the travelling public, in this very important
effort. Our campaign includes an announcement that will air on
television, a video to be shown on international airlines and a
brochure to educate people. We ask for the co-operation of all
Canadians on this very important issue.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure we all remember the last great Liberal task force on western
alienation. That really nipped the problem in the bud, did it
not? Now we have one on urban affairs. Meanwhile, the
infrastructure in our cities is crumbling as municipalities try
to cope with essential services such as public transit, clean
water, sewage treatment and housing.
Why will the Minister of the Environment not commit to a real
plan of action to help our municipalities with sustainable
development instead of hiding behind yet another useless Liberal
task force.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member appears
unaware of a $2 billion federal contribution to the third
infrastructure program, which will of course by matched by a
provincial contribution of $2 billion and a municipal
contribution of $2 billion.
Certainly there are many things that need to be done but we
believe in allowing municipalities to choose their own
priorities, unlike her leader who thinks they all should be top
down. We think we should be bottom up from municipalities.
If there is a further need, the government, if indeed revenues
are available, will undoubtedly consider how the program
continues in the future.
1145
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
much touted infrastructure program has everything in it but the
kitchen sink. With no funds to match, I might add,
municipalities are forced into the impossible situation of having
to choose between housing, public transit or clean water.
I will ask again. If the government is committed to the
sustainability of our cities and infrastructure, why is there not
a real plan instead of just another task force? Where is the
plan to do that over a long period of time?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member served on a municipal council for
some years before her election. This patronizing approach that
we know best here in Ottawa about everything across the country
and in every municipality is wrong. It is wrong headed. We do
not agree with that.
We think we should provide a national program which assists
municipalities in every part of the country to choose their own
priorities. She does not believe they are capable of choosing
priorities but we do. We think they understand local problems.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada is actively promoting the brain drain. A
search of the HRDC job bank website finds listings for jobs
located in the United States.
Why is the Government of Canada using Canadian taxpayer dollars
to promote the brain drain? Why is the government posting jobs
located in the U.S.?
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's allegation
is utterly unfounded.
Canada is currently doing everything it can to attract the best
researchers, including the 2,000 chairs and the money
invested in the Canada foundation for innovation. All the
programs are now in place to attract the best researchers.
Last week, in Germany, I was told that that country was
anxiously awaiting the outcome of our efforts to attract the
best minds to our country.
* * *
[English]
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In light of the incredible announcement yesterday that the
privacy commissioner has attempted to interfere in and to
influence the information commissioner's court case regarding the
Prime Minister's daily agenda, did the Prime Minister or any
official in his office or the Privy Council Office make the
request for the privacy commissioner to intervene in the
information commissioner's case?
Or, is this another case of the Prime Minister calling someone
he knows to get something he has done fixed? I ask the Deputy
Prime Minister to reject the premise of that question.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for
asking this question. He is reflecting on an officer of
parliament. In fact he is reflecting on two officers of
parliament.
I am certainly not aware of any action that he is alleging. He
ought to apologize for his reflection on two distinguished
officers appointed by the House.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are slamming into a brick
wall on health care in part due to the medical manpower crisis.
Canada will lack 112,000 nurses in the next 12 years. Despite
repeated red flags the government has done nothing.
My question is simple and for the Minister of Health. Why will
the federal government not work with the provinces to develop a
national strategy for this national problem?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through
Health Canada, is working in close collaboration with the
provinces on this matter.
This dates back to last September and the last
federal-provincial conference; the ministers of health of both
levels of government agreed that this was a top priority. They
struck a committee mandated to establish a human resources plan,
including one for nurses. That plan is now available.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the government talks, people
die. The bottom line is that the federal government shares
responsibility with the provinces.
The situation is not only terrible among nurses but also among
physicians. In the next 12 years half of all physicians will be
over the age of 55. Instead of talking, will the government work
with the provinces to increase enrolment in nursing and medical
faculties by 20%?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I notice that our colleague had a
two-part question prepared. He feels he has to read the second,
even though it was answered in my reply to the first.
I repeat, yes a joint approach is being taken, and we are not
waiting for some tragedy to occur. Action is already being
taken, and has been for some years. The federal-provincial
approach in this field will be continued.
* * *
1150
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to yesterday's Le Soleil, all Davie Industries are
waiting for to begin construction of a new $340 million drilling
platform is adequate funding from the federal government.
Since EDC officials have a letter of intent from the important
Davie client who has been interested in building this platform
for three and a half months, will the Minister for International
Trade tell the House what the Government of Canada is waiting
for to announce some good news to Davie workers? The shipyard's
closing?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is now looking at our
shipbuilding policy and is studying the report submitted a few
weeks ago.
I hope that there will be a positive response in the future.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
a coalition of unionized employees of shipyards in Atlantic
Canada, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia is asking for a
meeting with the Minister of Industry in order to follow up on
the report on shipbuilding entitled “Breaking Through”.
When will he grant this request for a meeting? Is he waiting
for all Canada's shipyards to close?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is aware of this issue and
he is prepared to meet with all those in the community.
I will pass on the comment by the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière to my colleague, the Minister of
Industry, and I hope that he will look into the situation.
* * *
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago John Martin, whose many
convictions include assault and weapons charges, told prison
officials that if released he would not go to a halfway house.
Despite his high risk status and his own warning, Correctional
Service Canada released him from Joyceville and told him to go to
a halfway house. Now he is unlawfully at large and police cannot
find him. They say he is on the run with no money and likely to
start robbing to support himself.
Will the solicitor general explain why a serious offender who
explicitly said he would not follow the terms of his parole was
allowed out of prison?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is aware the
National Parole Board is an arm's length body that evaluates
whether or not an offender should be transferred to another
institution. That is not the responsibility of a politician.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, John Martin is not an isolated case.
We know there are hundreds of other cases such as John Martin's.
I have a question for the government. It is bending over
backward and its institutions are bending over backward to help
convicted criminals that are in prison. Yet it has given no
service to a war veteran. Is it because it knows which way each
one of them voted?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to answer a question
like that. The fact of the matter is when people offend and are
convicted they are evaluated and put in a penitentiary.
Yes, there is rehabilitation. There is rehabilitation and there
is punishment.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are seriously concerned about what is happening in
Zimbabwe, particularly since the abduction of a Canadian aid
worker and the harassment of our high commissioner to that
country.
Could the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa tell
us what action the Government of Canada is taking to signal our
concern over the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned
about what is happening in Zimbabwe. As a result I will announce
the following measures that we will be taking.
We will suspend Zimbabwe's eligibility for the Export
Development Corporation's export financing. CIDA will not
undertake any new initiatives with departments of the government
of Zimbabwe. CIDA will put on hold the mining titles environment
project, an ongoing project at the moment.
Canada confirms its existing policy of barring all military
sales to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's participation in Canadian
peacekeeping training courses will be abolished, suspended.
Canada will continue to work through the Commonwealth ministers
action group to try to get the government of Zimbabwe to show
greater respect.
* * *
1155
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Keith Lawrence escaped from prison in
Ontario a long time ago. Since 1972 he has lived in Ontario
under an alias and was recently rearrested, but it took nearly
three decades and a tip from a family member to bring it to pass.
Would the solicitor general tell the House why he is doing so
little toward finding the hundreds of offenders at large in
Canada?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my hon. colleague is
not fearmongering to the public. The facts are the facts.
Very rarely does a person escape from our maximum and medium
institutions. In the medium institutions we have in the last
eight years cut the number of escapees by 61%. The government
has done a lot to improve the prison system in this country.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, nearly a thousand convicted criminals
are at large in Canada. These offenders, murderers, rapists and
drug traffickers, were in the custody of Correctional Service
Canada but are now outside without serving the sentences handed
down by the courts. They are back on the streets putting our
citizens in danger.
We can see by the incident involving Keith Lawrence that it can
happen for decades. Would the solicitor general tell the House
what he plans to do in order to put these offenders back where
they belong?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague
wishes to try to tell Canadians that a lot of offenders are
escaping from maximum and medium institutions.
As I said, the facts are the facts. If a person does walk away from
a medium security institution and is caught for speeding or
anything else, he or she is rearrested right on the spot. It is
important that Canadians know that.
The facts are also that escapes have been cut by 61%. We have
done a lot to improve the system in this country and will
continue to do a lot to improve it.
* * *
[Translation]
PORT INFRASTRUCTURES
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is allocating a meagre $50 million for the maintenance
and repair of small craft harbours, when we all know that the
infrastructure network and these harbours are in very bad shape,
in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
How does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reconcile so few
resources and so many needs? Is he prepared to invest more and
quickly?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is always quite a bit of demand for
repairs of small craft harbours. We look at safety and need
across the country. It is a priority to make sure that our
harbours are safe and can be utilized by our fishing fleets.
It is done on a merit basis. We are repairing small craft
harbours across the country. We will continue to repair them to
ensure that they are safe and can be properly utilized.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In light of the recently announced decision regarding
consultations with first nations to discuss changes to the Indian
Act, which could lead to economic opportunities and
infrastructure development on first nation communities, would the
parliamentary secretary cite a positive example of such a
consultation process?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my hon. colleague for his question. It gives me an
opportunity to remind the House that one year ago today the
Nisga'a Lisims government was inaugurated in New Aiyansh in
northwestern British Columbia.
The federal government gave the Nisga'a stewardship over their
lands and resources. It was the result of a combination of a
hundred years of negotiation. When the Nisga'a Final Agreement
Act was given royal assent in the other place, the Nisga'a called
home. People left their homes and started parading.
* * *
1200
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the United States congress passed the
largest tax cut in world history of $1.4 trillion.
Given that American labour productivity is already growing at
three times the level of Canada and given that the huge tax cuts
announced yesterday will make American tax levels permanently
lower than those of Canada, what does the government propose to
do to allow our productivity to compete with that of the United
States?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are away ahead of the U.S. on this matter. We have
already brought forward and are implementing tax cuts which are
going into effect faster, wider and deeper than those of the
Americans. They are just catching up with us.
In future I hope the hon. member will get his questions from
Canadian sources rather than sitting in the House and reading the
New York Times.
* * *
[Translation]
GRANTS AND LOANS
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development indicated yesterday, before the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, that she was
considering the possibility of setting up a system of
scholarships and learning accounts to help students pay for
their training.
Why does the minister not acknowledge that the system of loans
and grants in Quebec is the best in Canada, and would she not be
better advised to allow Quebec to opt out with full compensation
in order to avoid once again taking students hostage?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister told
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development yesterday,
the government has made a commitment to help Canadians improve
their skills. This is written in the throne speech and in the
red book.
In particular, we have spoken of the need to help people improve
the ability to set money aside for ongoing learning. As the
minister indicated yesterday, the government is working now to
honour this commitment.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave notice to the Chair of a question
of privilege concerning the public letter the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, wrote to Information
Commissioner John Reid. The letter was made public by wide
dissemination through privacy commissioner facilities including
the Internet and it appears on the website of the privacy
commissioner.
It is important to note that the letter has received widespread
distribution and is not a private piece of correspondence. Mr.
Speaker, I will be sending you a copy of the letter from the
website and I ask for consent of the House to table a copy at
some point. The letter is a direct public attack by one officer
of parliament on the work of another officer of parliament, as
referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister today in the House. It
seriously calls into question the impartiality of the privacy
commissioner.
It will be my submission to the Chair that this public attack on
an officer of parliament erodes public confidence in that
officer. The fact that the attack was made by an officer of
parliament erodes public confidence in this institution and is a
contempt of the House and its officials. Both the privacy
commissioner and the information commissioner are officers of
parliament. They report to the House and operate under the
authority of two statutes, the Privacy Act and the Access to
Information Act.
I refer the Chair to page 155 of Erskine May, 19th edition,
which states:
Both Houses will treat as breaches of their privileges, not
only acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the
execution of their duty, but also any conduct which may tend to
deter them from doing their duty in the future.
The duties and powers of the privacy commissioner are set out in
section 29. I will not quote them here as you do not have to
rule on questions of law, Mr. Speaker. It is sufficient to know
that the privacy commissioner is empowered to investigate
complaints from individuals.
The important feature is that there must be a complaint. There
was no indication in the letter that a complaint had been made
and we are not aware that any such complaint was made. The
closest indication as to the motivation of the privacy
commissioner is his statement found at paragraph five:
My duty as Privacy Commissioner of Canada is to champion and
defend the legitimate privacy rights of every Canadian, whether
it be an unemployed labourer or the Prime Minister of our
country.
1205
I do not know how many unemployed labourers are the subject of
this sort of treatment, but I know there is a legitimate case
before the Supreme Court of Canada for judicial determination.
The privacy commissioner is attempting to alter its outcome on
behalf of his friend the Prime Minister.
The relationship between Mr. Radwanski and the Prime Minister
was raised in the House and in the second chamber of parliament
prior to his appointment. It has been the subject of media
comment. The unilateral and grossly improper attempt to make the
information commissioner withdraw an action authorized by law
gives the public the impression that an officer of parliament is
primarily an agent of the Prime Minister and acting in such a way
as to interfere with the process of the courts. The matter will
be adjudicated in due course.
The Privacy Act empowers the commissioner to receive and to
investigate complaints. He is empowered to make findings and to
report his findings to government. He is empowered to examine
databanks, to make findings and to report those findings. He is
required to report to parliament annually. He is empowered to
make special reports:
—commenting on any matter within the scope of the powers, duties
and functions of the Commissioner where, in the opinion of the
Commissioner, the matter is of such urgency or importance that a
report thereon should not be deferred until the time provided for
transmission of the next annual report of the Commissioner.
He is not empowered to unilaterally declare himself a champion
of the Prime Minister's side in a court proceeding and to attack
an officer of parliament who has lawful authority to seek
judicial determinations on matters lawfully brought through the
information commissioner's office. It is important and critical
to my argument that the Chair consider that point.
There has been an increasing trend on the part of some
parliamentary officers to involve themselves, mostly through
public comment, in matters outside their statutory
responsibilities.
I have refrained from raising questions on the issue until now.
I find it particularly troublesome when individuals, in this
instance the privacy commissioner, start telling other
jurisdictions their views on what the laws should be. These
people are appointed to fulfil their duties under the law and
their appointments do not make them judge and jury on all matters
relating to those subjects. They are first and foremost officers
appointed to do their duty under the law.
We do not tolerate judges taking to the public platform to
participate in public debate. There needs to be similar restraint
exercised on officers of parliament. They do not speak for this
place. They are not self-appointed, self-generated champions of
what the law should be. Nor should they act in no way as agents
for the Prime Minister or portray themselves in that fashion.
The issue of the information commissioner's access to the Prime
Minister's agenda is before the Supreme Court of Canada, the
highest court in the land, for determination. The court will do
its job. The privacy commissioner seeks to subvert this lawful
process and in so doing has been intemperate and accusatory. To
call the lawful actions of an officer of parliament “tantamount
to informational rape” is not only demeaning to the office
holder. It reflects on the House of which he is an officer.
The information commissioner is a former parliamentarian
empowered by the House. He is not freelancing or acting in some
sort of nefarious purpose for the sole purpose of partisan
exploration of the Prime Minister's agenda. He had a formal
request to seek such information. He has a mandate and a
responsibility to uphold that request and follow the chain of
information. However the unprecedented attack by his counterpart
the privacy commissioner is improper and I would submit
illogical.
The privacy commissioner has concerns about the law. There is
nothing in the law to establish the office of champion of the
Prime Minister. We are aware of no complaint to the privacy
commissioner unless it came from the PMO or the Privy Council
Office. It appears he has set out to attack an officer of
parliament for purposes other than his statutory framework. He
is attempting to put the fix in for the Prime Minister's Office.
If the privacy commissioner has concerns about the law he has
the ability to report those concerns to parliament. To my
knowledge he has not done so. Instead he has, and this is
important, publicly attacked the lawful activities of the
information commissioner without the foundation of a complaint
having been made to him.
1210
This gives the appearance, whether true or not, that the privacy
commissioner is the Prime Minister's agent, champion and client.
It undermines public confidence in the independence of the
privacy commissioner. He has become the champion of the Prime
Minister against a fellow officer of parliament.
The ethics counsellor has cast himself in a similar role, and
this is the complete opposite of what their offices should
represent and are intended to do.
These actions, the unilateral and unauthorized public
undermining of an officer of parliament in the execution of his
lawful duties and the carrying out of a media campaign against an
officer of parliament in the lawful pursuit of his duties,
constitute prima facie evidence of contempt of the House.
Public confidence in all officers of parliament should be a
matter of basic concern to every member of the House. The issue
is sufficiently serious to merit examination by a committee, and
I am prepared to move the necessary motion should you find there
is a prima facie case of contempt before the House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not take a long time to
discuss the issue brought to the floor of the House by the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House leader for
the Conservative Party.
The House will know that Mr. Radwanski, in responding to a media
question, indicated he had not spoken to the Prime Minister about
this case. Nor had anyone in the Prime Minister's Office
encouraged him to speak about the issue. Let us be clear on
that.
Both officials in question are officers of parliament, not only
of this House but of both houses. They are officers of
parliament as an institution. Just as the information
commissioner responds to questions involving access to
information, the privacy commissioner has a role to comment on
what he believes to be privacy issues. His task in that regard
is of solemn importance.
It is not for me to say which of the two tasks is more
important. The fact that both officials have existed in a
parallel way presumably means that the House and all of us
consider both roles equally important.
The hon. member across the way said, and the blues will verify
the precise words, that the privacy commissioner commented as to
what the law should be. I do not believe the privacy
commissioner has made remarks as to what the law governing his
position should be. I do not think that is the case.
Second, the hon. member, while claiming to defend an officer of
parliament, made very strong accusations about another officer of
parliament. He said the officer in question had exceeded his
mandate.
The hon. member has a right to state his opinion. I may or may
not agree with it but that is a different proposition. However
the member has said on repeated occasions, and I think there were
five of them, that the officer in question was a champion of the
Prime Minister. The member has no knowledge or information to
support that and has produced no evidence before the House.
Repeating a sentence he had said previously in the same discourse
does not constitute proof.
Comments like that about an officer of parliament are
inappropriate. As to whether the privacy commissioner is
entitled to comment on privacy matters, I am sure that he is.
Whether he commented in the proper forum is a debate which is
perhaps of interest to some of us. If it is, there is nothing
wrong with discussing the issue.
We could call one or both officers before the appropriate
parliamentary committee under estimates, under Standing Order
108(2) or otherwise to ask them to define how they see themselves
doing their jobs in that regard.
That is fine. It is the privilege of the House and its
committees to do so.
1215
However, I do not believe that justifies making accusations of
the kind that were made about an officer of parliament while
alleging at the same time to defend the other officer of
parliament. Both officers were appointed by resolutions of both
Houses and carried with the vast support of this House. I do
believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the issue before you to consider.
As I said, I do not want to belabour the point here. I believe
I have addressed the issue. I do not believe it is my role to
make a trial of one person while accusing another, nor the
reverse thereof. Both of those would be inappropriate action on
my part.
I would suggest that if we have questions about how these two
officers discharge their functions there is an existing mechanism
for us to do that.
One should also be prudent when making comments in the House
about an issue that is presently before the courts. Prudent
language on behalf of all of us is extremely important. The
comments we make here can and have been used in the past.
The honourable and learned member across the way, who is a
member of the bar, will know that the comments we make here can
and have been used in the past to make points before the courts.
Therefore, we should be twice as prudent. I invite the House to
behave in that manner.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two quick points which might assist the Chair.
I have listened to the matter raised by the hon. member. I have
noted, and I hope all members have as well, that in our statutes
governing access to information and privacy we have constructed a
bit of a dynamic and a conflict between the two. The objectives
and goals of access to information move in a certain direction
and the goals and objectives of the privacy legislation operate
in the opposite direction. As a result of that, there is a
natural potential conflict between the goals of privacy and the
goals of access to information.
In this particular case, parliament having constructed both of
those mechanisms, it is natural that the dynamic of conflict
would always be there. It is therefore my view that this is more
a case of legitimate differences between the operation of a
statute and its mandate than it is a question of privilege.
On the issue of whether or not this is a question of privilege,
I personally do not grasp the difference between the information
commissioner and the privacy commissioner, and our day to day
privileges and operations here in the House. To be sure, it is a
conflict and a very public issue, but I do not see the connection
between that conflict and our day to day operations in the House
as it pertains to our privileges.
The Speaker: The Chair will take this matter under
advisement and come back to the House in due course. I thank
hon. members for their interventions on the point.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INUVIALUIT FINAL AGREEMENT REPORT
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, copies of the 1999-2000 annual
report of the implementation co-ordinating committee on the
Inuvialuit final agreement.
* * *
GWICH'IN LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, copies of the 1999-2000 annual
report of the implementation committee on the Gwich'in
comprehensive land claim agreement.
* * *
1220
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1) these are deemed referred to
the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the provisions
of Standing Order 87(6). The report recommends extending the
temporary suspension of the 100 signature rule for private
members' business.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 15th report later this day.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
fourth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs,
Northern Development and Natural Resources.
The committee has concurred in the conclusions of the fourth
report of the former standing committee on natural resources and
government operations, 36th parliament, second session, entitled
“Forest Management Practices in Canada as an International Trade
Issue”, and pursuant to Standing Order 109 requests the
government to table a comprehensive response to the report.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In reference to my earlier point of privilege, I neglected
to seek unanimous consent to table the letter which is the
subject of the point of privilege.
I would now ask the permission of the House to table the letter
that was written by the privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, to
the information commissioner, Mr. Reid. It is available on the
Internet but I would like it to form part of the public record.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to table the letter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order
36, from my constituents and other members of the city of Windsor
in the county of Essex.
The petitioners are looking for support in their drive to have a
small area of land, known as the Ojibway industrial site,
preserved in perpetuity for the members of the community. This
is property that is on federal land managed by the Windsor Port
Authority.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 24, 30 and 33.
.[Text]
Question No. 24—Hon. Charles Caccia:
What are the total estimated greenhouse gases emissions from:
(a) Suncor Energy Inc. project millenium oil sands development
project; and (b) the Shell Canada Athabasca oil sands project?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): (a) Suncor
Energy Inc. project millenium oil sands development project
includes a new mine and mining equipment, additional bitumen
extraction facilities, a new bitumen upgrading complex and a
combined cycle cogeneration plant. This will increase production
from 6.1 million m3 oil equivalent in 1999 to 12.6 million m3 of
crude oil and fuel products in 2002.
Suncor does not publish project specific emission targets. The
company expects to gain energy efficiency improvements throughout
the operation of project millenium. Green house gas, GHG,
emissions will be managed as an integral part of the overall
operations. Suncor contributes reports regularly to the climate
change voluntary challenge and registry program. The reported
actual emissions per unit of production was 0.728 tonnes CO2
equivalent per m3 of production in 1999, 30% below the 1990
baseline.
Suncor estimates that in 2002, when project millenium is
operational average GHG emissions from oil sands will be .606
tonnes CO2 equivalent/m3 of production. Based on this, and the
anticipated production of 6.5 m3 per year from project millenium,
GHG emissions from the project can be estimated to be 3.9 million
tonnes CO2 equivalent per year.
(b) Shell Canada Athabasca Oil Sands project:
The Athabasca oil sands, AOS, project, with a production
capacity of 24,646 m3/d, 9.9 million m3 per calendar year, was
officially launched in December 1999 with start-up planned for
2002. The AOS project in committed to a 50% reduction in GHG
emissions from those estimated when the project was officially
launched in 1999.
In its current design the project is expected to emit 3.5
million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. This captures the
project's own direct emissions and those form cogeneration
facilities that will supply electricity and heat. This figure is
projected, based on improvements made to the original
feasibility study and the company's environmental impact
assessment, which had estimated 4.8 million tonnes of CO2
equivalent per year.
Action to reach 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year
includes addition of cogeneration facilities. The target emission
level to be attained by 2010 is 1.75 million tonnes of CO2
equivalent per year.
Both Suncor and Shell have adopted ISO 14000, the international
environmental management system standard. The companies are also
involved in the oil sands task force of the Canadian industry
program for energy conservation, CIPEC, in their pursuit of
energy management.
Question No. 30—Mr. John Duncan:
What have been the total costs since 1995 for the project to
replace the old foghorn at the Cape Mudge light station in
British Columbia with an electronic foghorn, including: (a)
the cost of the solar unit, batteries and horns; (b) the cost
to repair or replace original components or failures; (c) the
cost of maintenance; and (d) the cost of technician
transportation and labour?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
(a) The following equipment was installed at Cape Mudge light
station as part of the lightstation service project.
This amount includes the total cost of equipment and hardware.
(b) The first electronic foghorn installed on October 21, 1997,
was an AB560 model with a frequency of 645Hz. The foghorn's two
emitters were defective at the time of installation and replaced
under warranty, however the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, spent
approximately $900 to replace the emitters.
(c) Following the installation of the electric foghorn,
complaints were received by local residents that the horn was too
loud. The foghorn was subsequently replaced on April 9, 1998, by
a smaller AP/FA390 foghorn with a frequency of 390Hz that has a
lower frequency and less range. This is the horn that is
currently operating at Cape Mudge. The AB560 foghorn was returned
to inventory to be redeployed to another location. The cost to
replace the foghorn with the AP/FA390 was approximately $1,400.
(d) The light station is serviced by CCG technicians on a six
month schedule at an annual cost of $2,000 including the cost of
labour helicopter time and travel costs.
In terms of additional costs, every attempt has been made to
correct outages at Cape Mudge by combining with other regular
maintenance trips. No other significant costs have been incurred
since 1995.
Question No. 33—Mr. Bill Casey:
With respect to the ethics
counsellor, Howard Wilson, who was appointed by the Prime
Minister On June 16, 1994: (a) what is the salary range for the
position of ethics counsellor; (b) what are the terms and conditions
of his employment; (c) when is his term of employment up for
renewal; and (d) what is the operating budget for the office of
the ethics counsellor?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Privy Council Office and Industry Canada as follows:
(a) Effective April 1, 2000, the salary range for the ethics
counsellor is $145,000 to $170,700.
(b) The ethics counsellor is subject to the terms and conditions
of employment in the executive group in the public service.
(c) The ethics counsellor serves for an indeterminate period of
time.
(d) The office of the ethics counsellor's total operating
budget for the year 2001-02 is $1,965,893 of which $1,683,515 is
for salaries and $282,378 is for general operating expenditures.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1225
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another Act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, before we broke for question period I was detailing
some of the difficulties our population was facing because of the
type of budgetary processes we have had over the last number of
years while this government has been in power. I was explaining
how the financial positions of a number of Canadian families have
altered to a significantly lower level.
I would now like to address the question of wealth. I will cite
only one statistic. In 1999 the top 10% of Canadian families had
a medium net worth of $703,500. The lowest 10% had a negative
net worth of approximately minus $2,010. The top 10% are wealthy
and the bottom 10% are in a negative position. That is the type
of society that has been created by these types of budgetary
processes.
The other point I would like to address concerns the capital
gains break that the government has given mostly to the wealthy.
The tax rate on capital gains had been set at 75%. The bill
would reduce that to 66.7%, which is a substantial reduction.
It is interesting to note that as the bill was working its way
through the process, there was other work going on as well. Neil
Brooks, a tax expert, was making a compelling case against the
capital gains tax break in the Senate committee. He pointed out
the impact this capital gains tax break had on substantial
wealth. He made the argument that it violated the fundamental
tax principle, which is that taxpayers with the same ability to
pay should pay the same regardless of their income sources. He
went on to point out that its impact encouraged speculation not
just in the stock market but in real estate, commodity futures
and collectibles. We have seen some of the negative consequences
of that type of speculation, especially in the stock market in
the last six to twelve months.
Professor Brooks made another point, which was a bit more subtle
but still important. As we encourage the type of investment that
results in capital gains, it takes away from other areas of the
market and the economy. He said that this provided incentives
for the conversion of dividends and even labour income into
capital gains as opposed to allowing those to continue, and the
benefit that it would give to the economy generally. His final
point was that it also complicated the tax system and actually
reduced tax revenue.
It is important to appreciate the size of the gain. In 1996
taxpayers with incomes of more than $250,000 a year reported
average capital gains of $74,000. That was almost 500 times the
average capital gain of $150 reported by taxpayers earning
between $20,000 and $40,000.
That is the kind of system the bill would encourage and continue.
1230
We heard from some of the other speakers today that over the
next five years the bill would reduce taxes by $100 billion. Of
course the government takes great credit for this. I would like
to go back and look at that.
On the simple basis of fairness, does it make sense to be doing
this? Do those tax breaks do anything at all to reduce the
inequality that I mentioned earlier in my address? The answer is
no, it does not. In fact it perpetuates and increases the
inequality between that lower 10% or 20% of the families in
Canada and the upper 10% and 20% of the families in Canada. It
will follow an American model that is even worse than what we
have now, but toward which we are very rapidly going. This will
result in the same type of inequalities from which that country
suffers.
The other point I would make about the $100 billion is that it
just cries out, as I made the point earlier, of the hypocrisy of
the government supporting the motion we had on safe water earlier
this week, then not spending it on an infrastructure program that
was at all meaningful in terms of treating our water and our
sewage, thereby creating a safe water system for all of Canada.
This government level is the only one that has the ability, in
terms of revenue, to deal with the problem.
In that regard, it is not as though it can claim any ignorance
of the need for these funds. I have already mentioned that the
Canadian Federation of Municipalities had a figure out there for
some time of $16.5 billion that would be needed over the next 10
years. I mentioned earlier that CMHC, Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, had a study three years ago that set out the
need for $4 billion a year in infrastructure over the next 15
years to deal with the water problem and crisis and to provide
the country with safe water.
Somehow the government missed those two studies, those figures
and that information. We had Walkerton and that was before the
bill was introduced. We saw the tragedy in that community as a
result of an unsafe water system.
In conclusion, it is a bill that obviously my party cannot
support and is one that we will vote against for all the reasons
that I mentioned today.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address this important legislation, but I want to say
from the outset that my party will oppose Bill C-22.
Why? Because of the lack of concrete measures that would serve
the public interest, particularly low and middle income earners.
I want to discuss the tax cuts that were mentioned in the last
federal budget and that will now become reality with Bill C-22.
These tax cuts by the Minister of Finance are great for very
high income earners.
If we look at measures such as lower tax rates or the new tax
rate on capital gains, we realize that those who will benefit
the most from the Minister of Finance's budget and tax cuts are
the people who earn at least $250,000. The Minister of Finance
targeted these people first and foremost. As of this year, this
group will save about $19,000 in taxes.
1235
Instead, we are shocked to see how minimal the tax cuts and
savings for low and middle income families are.
Taking the example of a single parent with one dependent child
and an income of $30,000, this person will have a tax saving of
$750 and will continue to pay taxes.
Is it normal for a single parent family, with a single
wage-earner and one child to earn $30,000 and still pay some
$1,545 in income tax, even after a tax cut? Is this normal for
a family that has to live on $30,000? That is the cut-off figure
for the poverty line, according to Statistics Canada.
Is it normal for the federal government to continue to
impoverish this family still further, even with the tax cuts, by
making it pay an average of $1,500 in federal income tax? No,
it is not. A single parent with one child and an income of
$30,000 ought not to be paying any federal income tax.
That is the way it is in Quebec. For some time now the
Government of Quebec has been revising its tax categories.
It has revised the marginal tax rates with the following result:
a family of two adults and two children with an annual income of
$47,000 will pay hardly any tax. How is it that a family with
one child and one wage earner is still in the situation of
having to pay more than $1,500 in tax?
I can already hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance replying “That is wrong, it makes no sense”. I have
news for him. It is wrong to say that it makes no sense. He
should save his breath. People have just finished filing their
income tax and they have it fresh in their memories that, once
again this year, they have paid federal tax even though they are
in the low income category.
When we look at the tax cuts for low and middle income families,
we see that the tax savings this year, for example, will be no
more than $300 or $350. That is for this year, because these
tax cuts are being phased in between now and 2004; that is about
the average.
But the high income earners get great breaks. As I mentioned
earlier, on average, those earning $250,000 and up will save
$19,000 this year. There is a double standard here. The
government has also forgotten that it is low and middle income
earners who have brought down the deficit since 1993, who have
contributed to the huge surpluses, and we will come back to this
later.
Middle income families are the federal government's cash cow.
They are the source of most of the money collected in income
taxes. The government should have been a bit more sensitive when
it came to this category of revenue. These families should have
been given a few more credits for having played such a major role
in helping put the fiscal house in order.
It can never be said often enough that all the cuts made by this
government since 1994, such as in the Canada social transfer for
funding health, education and social assistance, have taken
their toll on these families. These are the people really
responsible for putting the fiscal house in order and generating
surpluses. They are still doing it today. It must never be
forgotten that every year the Liberals greedily help themselves
to the surpluses accumulating in the EI fund because of the
premiums paid by workers and employers.
It is not right that barely 40% of unemployed workers qualify
for EI benefits. It is not right. The system is too
restrictive. It excludes too many people who should normally
have been entitled to EI benefits, since everyone pays into the
plan now.
1240
There is something wrong when these people are being hung to dry
by the last budget, actually the last two budgets, and asked to
help with fiscal consolidation through their contributions. The
government does not have to worry any more.
Everything left in the employment insurance fund, once it has
paid benefits to only 40% of the unemployed, the rest, that is
60%, goes into the consolidated revenue fund. It is added to
general revenues, therefore contributing to fiscal consolidation
and general surplus.
Why is it that these people could not benefit from true
employment insurance reform; a real reform, not a “reformette”,
a true reform of the employment insurance plan using most of the
accumulated surplus to really help the unemployed instead of
excluding 60% of them?
What we have instead is tax relief especially for millionaires,
probably those who contribute the most to the Liberal Party
coffers. We have unemployed workers who are excluded from the
employment insurance plan. Low income single parent families
with one child, making $30,000, are still paying $1,500 in
federal income tax. It is despicable.
Is there a justice in this country? Are we eventually going to
do something for these people or are we going to shamelessly
forge ahead with the same budgetary policy we have being
following so far?
As for social housing, why was there nothing in the past two
budgets, that is, those of February and October 2000, the
October mini budget geared to the election, of the Prime Minister
in waiting. He has long been in waiting, but he is still
hoping.
How is it they failed to consider social housing? It is an
important issue that probably affects the single parent family,
with one dependant and an income of $30,000 or less, which I
cited as an example earlier.
How is it that this family is being put off once again? Why is
not one cent provided for social housing? Is this a matter of
no importance?
And yet, when we look at the statistics, the number of people
spending over 50% of their income on housing has increased
alarmingly, especially since the start of the 1990s.
At the moment, if we look at the statistics, there are 833,000
households—nearly a million households—that should be offered
social housing, because they spend over 50% of their income on
housing. That means that the other 50% is left for all the
rest: food, electricity, telephone, clothing the children, child
care and heating in winter.
When we think of the scandalous profits of the oil companies,
which have raised prices significantly in the past two years, we
could say there is collusion—let us not beat about the bush—in the
oil industry.
They get together and raise prices at the same time. This is
what the major oil companies do, and the government does nothing
about it.
Who is hit by the oil crisis, a crisis created by the big oil
companies through collusion? Again, it is the poor, it is those
who, after spending 50% of their income on rent, must spend part
of the other 50% on heating.
Given such glaring needs, why did the federal government not
think for one second of including new money for social housing
in its budget?
If the government had continued to spend proportionally the same
amount on social housing that it did before 1994, if it had
maintained these expenditures since 1994, there would be 30,000
additional social housing units in Quebec alone. The government
should have invested $3.5 billion in social housing since 1994,
but it did not.
I cannot believe that, with surpluses coming out of his
ears—even with the downturn—the Minister of Finance is not
ashamed when he gets up in the morning and looks at himself in
the mirror, because he did not show any consideration for the
poor, who are not the main beneficiaries of his tax cuts and of
all the measures implemented by the government since 1993.
1245
I can hardly believe that.
Why did he not also consider—after talking about it for so
long—the possibility of transferring $500 million from the
employment insurance fund to Quebec, to set up a true parental
leave program?
Instead, they are putting the $6 billion surplus
in their pockets to increase the surplus and to promote the
image of the Prime Minister in waiting, that is the current
Minister of Finance. Why have these people, who claim to be
civilized, who claim to support social justice, not think of
transferring, as provided under section 69 of the Employment
Insurance Act, the $500 million that is required to set up a
parental leave program in Quebec?
Because of this and because of them—and they are not in the least
ashamed—the introduction of this plan has been put off until
2003. How is it that they are making young couples postpone
having children? Are children not important to this government?
Why will it not agree to transfer to Quebec the amount allowed
under the Employment Insurance Act? Is it because Quebec is
asking? Do they have it in for young families in Quebec?
It is sometimes hard to understand, to keep one's cool, in the
face of such deceit, such an obstinate refusal, such incredible
closed-mindedness, when by rights we should have had a parental
leave plan in Quebec in 2001 or 2002, thus helping not just
young parents working for businesses or the government, but also
those who are self-employed.
Unlike the federal plan, the Quebec parental leave plan pays
benefits to self-employed workers and takes the reality of the
labour market into account. Not only are we still dealing with
dinosaurs when it comes to a single currency, but also when it
comes to parental leave. They are incapable of adapting to the
labour market and keeping the public interest in mind.
Let us not forget that not only does federal parental leave not
cover self-employed workers, but the eligibility criteria for
this leave are the same as for employment insurance. This means
that most people are excluded right off the bat. That is the
situation right now. A little over 40% of unemployed workers
qualify for EI benefits; if these are the same criteria used for
the federal parental leave policy, quite a few people besides
self-employed workers will not qualify.
In Quebec no one is excluded, not the self-employed, not the
parents who wish to take advantage of our parental leave
program. It is a far superior program. Because of the
obstinate refusal of this government, however, young parents
cannot take advantage of such a program.
How can it be that there has been no thought given, with
billions of dollars in surplus again this year, to indexing the
social transfers to the provinces, for health and education in
particular? How can it be that, seeing what is going on in the
hospitals, with the lack of funds and increasing demand, no
thought is being given to putting more into transfer payments
for health and education?
They say “But we must be prudent. The surplus is not all that
big”. This is false. Contrary to the Minister of Finance's
forecast in last year's budget, the surplus will not be $4
billion—insignificant, even taking into account the tax cuts in
the October mini budget—but rather in excess of $17 billion, or
four times his predicted figure. When it comes down to it, the
Minister of Finance's sole plan was to use figures that have
nothing in common with reality for petty political gain.
1250
That is what he has done ever since he has been Minister of
Finance. When there was a federal government deficit, he
inflated the deficit figure, telling people “Look out, we need
to be careful, because we do not have all the manoeuvrability we
need, and the battle is far from over”.
He even told the members of his own party “We need to be
careful”. But there is always a limit to prudence. We are all
in favour of being careful, of having a contingency fund, but we
are not in favour of lying to the population by not giving the
real figures and by avoiding any debate on how to use the surplus.
When he forecasts a $4 billion surplus and that in reality the
surplus is $17 billion, the $13 billion that was not forecast is
used directly to pay down the debt. He avoids any debate and
puts everything on the debt. There is no democratic debate, no
transparency. This is hypocrisy, big time, and he wants us to
swallow it.
I made a bet with a reporter. Did he know what the Finance
Minister will say next week in his economic statement? He will
say “There is no unanimity among economists; some say that
things may go well, others that they may go wrong”. One of his
former assistants, Mr. Drummond, who has been Assistant Deputy
Minister of Finance and who is now the chief economist at the
Toronto Dominion Bank, said “We have to be careful.
We could come back to deficits in three years”, and he knows
what he is talking about. Having been an assistant to the
Minister of Finance for several years, Mr. Drummond cannot go
wrong that easily and talk nonsense.
The Minister of Finance is setting the stage for next week by
saying “Surpluses will not be as high next year. The economy is
slowing down, we could go into a recession, find ourselves in
the red. We may not necessarily be headed toward a deficit, but
we still have to be careful. Since there is no unanimity among
economists, I prefer to draw a line down the middle and say that
surpluses will not be as high”. In other words, he is still going
to tell us nonsense.
He is setting the stage. Some economists are optimistic.
Yesterday, Thomas Wilson, a well known forecaster, forecast a
surplus of $14 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.
He is a bit closer to reality. Our own figure is $17 billion.
Even with last October's tax cuts and the new spending for Genome
Canada, we still come up with $17 billion.
Next week, the Minister of Finance will tell us we have to be
careful. That is a lie. It is hard to believe how much the
public has been fooled since this man has become the Minister of
Finance.
It is so much so that the economic statement exercise is losing its
credibility, according to several analysts, particularly
Mr. Piché, of La Presse, because the figures we are given are
false. They are just not the right figures. We cannot rely on
them to tell whether government management is good or bad. Does
it follow certain priorities in its management, or does it take
into account the interest of the population?
There is no way for us to know, because we do not have the right
figures. We have to find them for ourselves.
For the last fiscal year ending on March 31, we have a surplus
of at least $17 billion. For each of the last five years, I have
tried to lower the figures because of an economic downturn, but
I cannot see the day when we will have a deficit.
The government could have done a lot of things with this money.
It chose to side with the millionaires and not with the
population. For all these reasons, we are going to vote against
the bill.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, as usual, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is all mixed up. I will, if I may, try to
provide a few clarifications.
The member gave the impression that the focus of the October
2000 budget update was on the high income Canadians, and not on
low and middle income Canadians. On the contrary, the update was
aimed at the low and middle income Canadians.
1255
I will give two small examples, if I may. For a two-earner family
of four with a combined income of $60,000, in less than four
years, taxes will be reduced by 34%.
Here is another example. For a family with two children and a
single income of $40,000 a year, the reduction will be 59%
within four years.
[English]
The member also talked about affordable housing. In our
election platform the government committed to working with the
provinces to deliver affordable housing programs.
Yesterday in committee the member talked about his lap top
computer and its modelling capabilities. Has he made the same
errors on his income tax calculations as he did with his economic
projections?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, as usual the Finance minister's
assistant is talking through his hat.
Any confusion is coming from his side. It will not be easy to
fool those who just completed their income tax returns.
Canadians know very well that a lone parent family with one
dependant and an income of $30,000 a year is still paying a lot
of income taxes to the federal government and that the federal
income tax impoverishes this family already living below the
poverty line. He will not fool those people.
If he thinks that Canadians are all stupid, he should think
again, especially since the income tax period only just ended.
Canadians just filed their income tax returns. They cannot be
fooled because they know what they paid in income tax. That is
the first thing.
The second thing is that, talking about these great tax
reductions, he said—he was honest enough to say so—“within four
years”, not right now. The surplus is there. Does anyone know
how much has accumulated in the federal government's coffers in
the first 11 months of the last fiscal year? Twenty billion
dollars, and the Minister of Finance is committed to put
$15 billion into the debt payment. He is forgetting the other
priorities.
It is fine to pay off the debt, we are all for that. But to put
all the money in there, while there are huge needs in the health
sector and in the fight against poverty, I cannot take this.
He is having discussions with the provinces about social
housing. Let us look at that. Do people know what the government
wants to do? It wants to leave the old stock of social housing
to the provinces, with maintenance costs, but not one cent for
investing in social housing. It is easy to pass the buck that
way.
The forecasting errors—I did not want to raise them, but he did.
Do people know for how long the Bloc Quebecois, with a small
team of two or three people and a small portable computer, has
been doing the estimates, the forecasts for the deficit and the
surplus? Since 1995. Do people know what the margin of error in
our forecasts has been from year to year? Three per cent, a
normal forecasting error.
What kind of error margins did the Minister of Finance and the
Liberal representative who just spoke have in their forecasts?
Between 130% and 400% recently, a 3% margin of error in our
forecasts as opposed to between 130% and 400%. Where is the
confusion? Where is the inability to forecast the surplus, or
rather, the deliberate way of hiding the truth, the real numbers,
from the population?
This does not come from the Bloc Quebecois. It comes from the
government.
So, before telling us what to do and saying any odd thing to the
population, who knows how much taxes it is paying to the federal
government, I would urge my colleague to reflect further.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-22.
The amendments to the Income Tax Act come as a result of the
February 2000 budget and also as a result of the October mini
budget, or economic statement or whatever semantics one would
utilize to describe that pre-election document of the Liberal
Party of Canada.
The amendments to the Income Tax Act represent a collection of
baby steps. Some are in the right direction. Some simply
represent a further complication of an already far too
complicated tax code. Most represent the triumph of politics
over public policy.
1300
If we look at the general direction of these tax measures, we
will find there is no general direction. In fact most of them
have resulted from a flimsily put together pre-election document.
The document is referred to as the mini budget and reflects a
mini vision of Canada.
These baby steps and tinkerings do not reflect what Canadians
truly need in an overall and significant broad based tax reform.
Tax reform can be used as a vehicle to create greater levels of
economic growth and opportunity. Instead of making tax tinkering
part of a pre-election policy, we should seize the tremendous
opportunity we have now with the budget surpluses to bring taxes
down, but use tax reform and tax reduction in lockstep.
Typically with tax reform we always create winners and losers.
However, if we implement tax reform and tax reduction
simultaneously in lockstep, we can ensure that there are no
losers created by significant tax reform. All Canadians then
would be winners as we create a more competitive and less
distortionary Canadian economy which is poised and positioned for
significant growth and opportunity, particularly in new economic
endeavours.
We have seen in recent years our competitiveness with our
trading partners suffer. We have seen other countries like
Ireland leapfrog over Canada and seize opportunities to grow and
prosper while Canada languishes. Ireland had a 92% growth in GDP
per capita over a 10 year period. During the same 10 year period
Canada had a 5% growth in its GDP per capita. This is pretty
anemic when we consider the extraordinary growth in Ireland, a
country once referred to as an economic basket case. Now it is
referred to as an economic lion. Ireland did that by utilizing
significant tax reform, particularly focused on a reduction of
capital and corporate income taxes.
One of my hon. colleagues opposite constructively offered her
views on this. I appreciate her views, as someone with a
profound understanding from her family perspective of Ireland,
and I agree with her. Ireland's commitment to education over the
last 20 years to 30 years has strongly helped position Ireland.
That being the case, Canada has by and large with its provincial
and federal governments over time made significant commitments to
education, so I would argue that that part of the equation has
been done quite well.
We could improve our commitment to education, as could any
country. It could be argued that Ireland could improve its
commitment. The greatest difference between the two environments
at this point is not in their commitment to education, it is
their commitment to tax reform as a lever to create greater
levels of economic growth and opportunity. That is the part we
have to address, and I am certain she would agree with me on that
front as well.
If we look at the government's record on economic issues since
1993 and how international confidence has been demonstrated in
the government's record since 1993, there is no better gauge by
which to judge the government than the performance of the
Canadian dollar. We have seen under this government a loss in
the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar of about 11
cents. The dollar reflects the shareholder value of Canada has
seen a significant decline under the government. Under the
previous government there was a one cent decline over a period of
nine years. This government has achieved an 11 cent decline in a
period of about eight years.
1305
Every time our dollar goes down it is effectively a pay cut for
every Canadian. We depend on the U.S. to such a significant
amount as our trading partners. From a consumer perspective,
given the degree to which Canadian consumers buy from U.S.
companies, it significantly reduces over a period of time their
disposable income.
It also has a very negative impact on productivity. Canadian
companies in the short term do not necessarily see the need to
make productivity enhancement a priority if they can hide under
this low dollar policy of the government.
The low dollar also damages productivity in the long term.
Companies that purchase productivity enhancing equipment or
technological advancement software, et cetera from the U.S. are
less inclined to do so if the dollar is low. As a result it
becomes a self-perpetuating prophecy that in fact the low dollar
creates in the long term lower levels of productivity by actually
reducing incentives for companies to do the right thing and build
their productive capacity in Canada.
In general, what is particularly disturbing about the state of
the Canadian dollar is that the Bank of Canada has in recent
years pursued a high dollar policy, yet Canadians are suffering
as under this low dollar result. The Bank of Canada under its
policies has targeted inflation rates in Canada of about a point
lower than those which are considered acceptable by the federal
reserve in the U.S. Despite this high dollar policy, we are
getting this low dollar result. We have to carefully analyze and
respond to the fiscal inadequacies of the fiscal framework in
Canada.
The government describes having a balanced approach. The fact
is a balanced approach is not the appropriate approach if we have
significant inherent imbalances in the economic framework, and we
do have some significant imbalances. Some are with taxation, not
only in terms of overall levels of taxation but particular types
of taxation which in and of themselves have the most negative
impact on economic growth. Unfortunately, some of the taxes
which are most politically palatable to reduce are ones that will
probably have some of the smaller impacts on economic growth and
opportunity. Some of the tax reductions which would spur the
greatest level of economic growth are those that sometimes are
less popular politically.
In the short term, and particularly after an election, the
government should take some risks and tackle some of the major
issues and addressing tax reform and the reduction of some of
Canada's most productivity damaging taxes. I will speak about a
couple of them.
One is our dependence on capital taxes in Canada. Capital taxes
reduce investments and the incentives for Canadians and people
outside of Canada to invest in the country. If we look at any
study on productivity, there is a strong correlation between
productivity and investment. If we tax capital and investment to
the degree we do in Canada, that will have a significant negative
impact on productivity enhancement.
The government has made some reduction in capital gains taxes.
The government says that the effective rates of capital gains
taxes are lower than in the U.S. That is not the case. We are
still higher in Canada than in the U.S. However, the most
important thing to recognize is the missed opportunity of the
government to eliminate personal capital gains taxes. In this
one instance we would be ahead of the U.S. in a very critical
area of the economy, that of taxing capital gains and encouraging
investment as opposed to discouraging investment innovation.
1310
The government is losing this opportunity because of political
reasons, the same reasons why the Liberal opposition fought
vociferously against the GST. It was a case of politics then and
it is a case of politics now. That is why it is not moving more
aggressively to address capital taxes in Canada, specifically
capital gains taxes.
I am focusing my comments today on tax reform, but we also need
to see a greater commitment to debt reduction which in time would
strengthen the Canadian dollar through fiscal policy.
In short, we are asking the Bank of Canada with one blunt
instrument, the interest rate, to try to strengthen the Canadian
dollar. We are ignoring in many cases the fiscal policy issues
that could be addressed by the government, but it refuses to talk
about the dollar. It also refuses to talk about some of the
concrete measures it could take through fiscal policy to address
the dollar.
We could also utilize tax reform in lockstep with equalization
and other policies as part of our economic development strategy.
I mentioned earlier the tremendous success that Ireland has
enjoyed over the last 12 years. Some would say that comparing
Ireland to Canada is not the best possible comparison because of
the degree to which Ireland received EU transfers in order to
allow it to invest so significantly in tax reduction. That
argument is not necessarily a bad one. However if we want to
look at the best possible comparison, we could compare Atlantic
Canada today to Ireland 10 years ago.
Today we have a hodgepodge of economic development policies and
agencies such as ACOA for Atlantic Canada. We also have our
equalization policy which is the only constitutionally enshrined
spending program of the government. I would suggest we should
develop a tax policy in consideration of some of our economic
development strategies.
In Atlantic Canada for example, the total budget for ACOA is a
little more than the total amount of federal corporate taxes paid
in Atlantic Canada. If we were to try to think in a more
imaginative and visionary way about this, we could see the
possibility exists with some assistance to eliminate federal
corporate taxes in that region of the country to spur economic
growth and opportunity. Quite possibly this could have a greater
level of impact on economic growth than would result from the
activities of ACOA.
I am not saying that ACOA has not had a positive impact in some
areas. My personal belief is that in many ways it was probably a
more appropriate instrument in the old economy than it is in the
new economy. In the new economy tax measures have demonstrated
far greater traction in achieving results in targeted areas than
have direct investments by agencies such as ACOA.
We need to invest in infrastructure. If the Atlantic innovation
fund focused on infrastructure, universities, technology transfer
strategies and commercialization, those sort of initiatives could
be very beneficial. I have great concerns about government
agencies making direct investments in individual companies.
Another potential role for ACOA would be for it to take part,
through the Atlantic innovation fund, in syndicated investment.
Effectively the participation of ACOA would not be as an
individual investor in a company, it would be part of a
syndication of investors, the majority of which would be private
sector investors.
1315
That could help by reducing overall risk and encouraging private
sector investment in particular geographic and sectoral areas, so
that is a potential role. However, we need to get far more
creative about how we encourage tax reform as a vehicle for
economic growth. We must also consider other public policy
priorities, such as economic development, and work more
creatively in that regard.
On a technical issue, Bill C-22 would allow tax deferred
rollover treatment for Canadians who hold shares of foreign
corporations that have been subsidiaries to the parent
shareholders. Some companies do not qualify because the bill
would require distributing corporations to have their shares
listed and actively traded on a stock exchange. That is
inherently unfair. It is my understanding from the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance that the issue will be
addressed in future amendments and legislation. I would be
supportive of that and would encourage the anomaly to be
addressed.
In terms of general tax reform, the government would do well to
dust off the Mintz report on corporate taxation and implement its
recommendations without significant amendment. That would go a
long way to improving competitiveness and reducing the
distortionary nature of our tax code.
We must move aggressively not just to reduce taxes in totality
but to reduce those which have the most negative impact on
economic growth and opportunity. Jack Mintz, in his report to
the Minister of Finance, went a long way toward doing that.
However the report has collected a lot of dust and has not
garnered the respect it deserves. The significant changes that
should have followed the report never occurred.
To compare the way the current Liberal government deals with the
erudite reports of great Canadians like Jack Mintz to the way the
Mulroney government dealt with such reports, we need only look at
the great report of Donald MacDonald on free trade.
Donald MacDonald had been a Liberal cabinet minister yet the
Mulroney government recognized the inherent benefits of following
the recommendations of the MacDonald commission. The Mulroney
government pursued a controversial free trade policy, fought an
election on it and did what was at the time relatively unpopular.
In the 1988 election over half of Canadians voted against free
trade yet the Mulroney government had the courage, vision,
foresight and wisdom to pursue innovative policies and do what
was right.
That is what I hope to see from the current government. I hope
it has the courage, vision and foresight to pursue an aggressive
policy of innovative tax reform and thereby create greater
economic growth and opportunity for all Canadians.
1320
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I listened with intrigue to the member's speech. He is
a fellow member of the finance committee. When members of the
finance committee listen to witnesses and debate among themselves
a lot of interesting ideas come out.
During his speech the member made a passing reference to ACOA.
ACOA has been used by various governments as a means of currying
political favour come election time. However its long term
economic benefit to Atlantic Canada has been much less than
advertised. The member said the same thing and indicated that a
good system of tax breaks would be of much greater benefit. I
think along those lines as well.
Could the hon. member enlarge a bit on the role of ACOA? What
vision might he have for bolstering, or setting free the economy
of Atlantic Canada? Would he be kind enough to respond?
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Elk
Island keeps us all on our toes periodically, in this place as
well as in the finance committee, and I appreciate his question.
ACOA has often played an important role in Atlantic Canada, even
into the mid-1990s, by investing where no private sector venture
capital players were doing so. Some of the technology companies
that have since developed and emerged would not be there today
had it not been for government investment.
The environment has since changed. I am aware of four active
venture capital firms that are investing directly in Atlantic
Canada. Investment banking activity is taking place. Some of
Canada's smartest money is finding opportunities in Canada's
smartest region and I am pleased to see that development.
Now that private sector money is being invested in Atlantic
Canada, ACOA can perhaps act as a partner to such investment
without necessarily making the decisions. It could play a
transitional role in reducing overall risk without necessarily
controlling investment. It could leave some of that control in
private sector hands or, as I suggest and with which I believe
the member concurred, the ACOA budget or part of it could be used
to reduce corporate taxes in Atlantic Canada and thereby create
greater economic growth and opportunity.
It is important to recognize that ACOA played an important and
positive role for Atlantic Canada before private money began
finding its way to these early stage companies. We can now be
far more creative and innovative in terms of tax reform and
economic development strategies.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-22. I take the
opportunity to speak to the bill because I have a concern. I
will not dwell on the logistics of the bill. I will leave it to
my colleagues to talk about its other technical aspects.
I rise to speak to the bill because the government claims it has
helped Canadians by reducing taxes and listening to Canadians. I
see the former revenue minister sitting there. He created the
big super agency and decided how it would work.
1325
I will point out a direct example from my constituency of how
the government and the minister's former agency have been picking
the pockets of ordinary Canadians. A gentleman in my riding
wrote me a letter and gave me permission to talk about it.
Eric is a senior citizen on the Canada pension plan. He is
upset because the government is withdrawing money from his
account without notifying him. The gentleman lives on CPP and
the government is taking more than 10% off his pension. How does
the government expect him to live if it takes more than 10% off
his CPP?
Eric admits he owes the government money. However the
government should have better mechanisms for collecting money
from seniors and others who cannot afford to have their meagre
benefits taken away by Revenue Canada. How does the government
expect the gentleman to live after that?
This morning I rose in the House on an S. O. 31 to talk about a
senior citizen who had taken $3,000 out of his retirement savings
plan to buy a computer. It triggered penalties and an increase
in his income tax. The poor senior citizen ended up losing
interest. The gentleman took out $3,000 and ended up paying the
government $168.
Is that how we treat senior citizens? Is that how we treat
Canadians who work hard and save their money? When they try to
reap the fruits of their labour the government, with policies
that go from left to right and top to bottom, takes money away
from them. It takes only a little here and there but
cumulatively the individual loses. The gentleman ended up paying
the government. Is that justice? It shows that the left hand of
the government does not know what the right hand is doing. All
Liberal members care about is how to take money from Canadians.
I have permission from another senior citizen to speak about his
income tax return. This gentleman was mad.
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal: I hope he did it electronically.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, I am sure he did. Let me tell
the minister opposite what his government and his former
department did.
The gentleman's income was $24,000 a year. I hope members
across the way will not tell me that $24,000 is a big sum of
money. Because the gentleman took money from his retirement
savings plan Revenue Canada charged him instalment interest of
$109. The department charged him instalment interest on an
income of $24,000.
How does the government expect the gentleman to live? How is a
gentleman earning only $24,000 expected to pay tax to Revenue
Canada on time? Can Revenue Canada not see that and show some
compassion instead of charging him $109? I have examples from
all my—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I apologize to the
hon. member but his time is up. He will have 14 minutes and 22
seconds when we resume debate.
1330
[Translation]
It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-222, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's
bill introduced by my very hon. colleague, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. He is a bit of a
visionary. He showed remarkable intelligence by putting this
bill forward.
For too long this category of workers has been neglected. We
only have to think back to the quiet revolution of the mid-1960s
and Quebec's development in the 1970s. A similar phenomenon
occurred in the rest of Canada. A university education was valued
to such a point that what we used to call trade schools, today's
training schools for specialized technicians, were neglected.
We must re-assert the value of specialized technicians as a trade
in various sectors. There is a shortage of specialized
technicians these days. In my riding we are experiencing a
situation I never thought we would see only a few short years
ago. We can no longer fill specialized technician positions,
especially in mechanics.
There is going to be, there already is a shortage of specialized
technicians.
The shortage could very well worsen with time. Recently, in June
1999, if I remember correctly, the Canadian Automotive Repair
and Service Council said that the biggest challenge facing the
industry at the end of the 20th century was to attract young
people. They were talking about mechanics.
When it is possible to improve the situation for automotive
mechanic technicians, we must do so with the objective of
attracting new recruits. We must make it easier for young people
who decide to get training in automotive mechanics to become
skilled technicians, because we all need them.
If we do not attract excellent skilled technicians to
parliament, we will be prevented from doing our work correctly.
Who never wished for a skilled automotive mechanic when his or
her car broke down? Automotive mechanics provide an essential
service for the smooth operation of the economy.
If, a few years down the road, we face a shortage that is worse
than it is today, we would deeply regret our inaction. This is
why we must make a particular effort.
Once again, I congratulate my colleague from
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. It is thanks to
this kind of initiative that we often manage to change things.
We are not asking for much. We are only asking for fairness for
automotive mechanics, by allowing them to claim a tax deduction
for tools of $250 or less in value.
For tools that cost $250 or more, we are asking that this be
treated as a capital expenditure, which would allow these
workers to claim a capital cost allowance on the cost of their
tools, which are often highly sophisticated and very expensive.
For example, the cost of the basic tool kit for a young person
starting out as an automobile technician is said to be between
$3,000 and $4,000. This young technician needs this basic tool
kit. When he is looking for a job, the first question he is
asked by the prospective employer is “Where is your tool kit?”
This young technician who just got out of school must pay $3,000
to buy his tools, after having paid several thousand dollars for
his specialized training.
A highly skilled technician, a brake specialist or a radiator
specialist, for example, may have a basic tool kit that costs
$3,000 to $4,000 and a special tool kit that may cost anywhere
from $20,000 to $40,000 depending on the area of specialization.
This is a lot of money to spend for tools that are required.
1335
I am pleased to see that, in the last parliament, my colleague
introduced a similar bill, which was passed by a vast majority
of members in this House. I think only 11 or 12 out of the 301
members of the House of Commons opposed that bill.
It is encouraging to see that it is possible to raise awareness
among all members and to get them to set aside any partisan
considerations in order to make tax policy decisions that will
help the cause of a particular category of workers, namely
automotive technicians.
It may seem like a minor tax bill, but its impact is just huge.
I say that, because the only reason my colleague—and those who,
like me and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, support him—has
introduced such a bill is to serve the public interest and improve
the general well-being of the population. All bills, private
members bills as well as government bills, should aim at serving
the public interest.
Such deductions may seem trivial, but they may be the incentive
needed to bring a young person, who still does not know what to
do in life but who is very gifted in mechanics, to choose this
trade.
We need gifted mechanics. I am not a specialist of mechanics and
I will never be, this is not my ambition. I hardly know the
difference between an engine and a carburetor. However, I do not
want to dwell on my shortcomings.
My point is that a young person who has such a talent and who
does not know yet what trade to choose could decide to become a
mechanic if he has some hope that a tax credit or a special
capital cost allowance on tools will make things easier for him.
Those who already work as mechanics and who are given the chance
to deduct the costs of their tools will also feel relieved. We
should not forget that automotive technicians provide an
essential service. Without them, we might not be here this
morning. Mechanics do not make fortunes. The average salary
varies from $29,000 to $40,000 a year. Providing relief to
automotive technicians, who must not only buy their equipment
but keep it up to date, could contribute to improve their
quality of life. That is what we are here for.
The automobile industry goes through changes and
incredible technological evolution. My colleague, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, told me
that every year there are incredible changes occurring in
mechanics, namely in terms of hybrid components, that is
electrical and fuel injection components. We must take into
consideration the fact that technicians need to renew their
equipment.
I hope that all members will support this bill introduced by the
member for Beauport-Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré-Île-d'Orléans.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of
Bill C-222.
I congratulate the member for having brought the bill forward in
the last parliament and for having gained such strong support
from all sides of the House. The New Democratic Party supported
the earlier bill and we will support the new version of the bill.
In fact my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst introduced a similar
motion in the House.
The basic principle of the bill is about valuing people's work.
We should be supportive of the work that mechanics do. They
should legitimately be allowed to deduct the tools of their trade
as an expense.
It is the principle of fairness and of recognizing the importance
of this one type of work.
1340
Not everybody can afford an automobile but most of us do rely on
automobiles to drive us to different locations. However, we do
not really value the work that goes into maintaining those
automobiles. Auto mechanics have a thankless task.
We like to complain about auto mechanics and the cost of
repairs. Sometimes people do get ripped off but we are talking
about an area of work that is highly skilled. Mechanics require
an enormous amount of training and initiative in terms of keeping
abreast of technological advances in the automobile industry.
My colleague from the Bloc mentioned that many auto mechanics do
not make a lot of money. It is not exactly the most highly paid
and lucrative job out there. It is very important that we look
at this kind of work and recognize that there is a monetary
expense involved for auto mechanics. They do not have the
advantage, as do some other sectors, of being able to claim the
tools of their trade as an expense.
The bill is not only about valuing people's work, it is also
about fair taxation. Our tax system is a crazy maze. Most
people feel very intimidated by a system that has become
incredibly complex but most people understand instinctively,
although our system is a progressive tax system, that the less
money one earns the worst break one gets.
We have situations where corporate executives can write off all
kinds of expenses that are considered to be legitimate expenses
of business or employment. Buying hockey tickets, fancy dinners
or other kinds of things for entertainment are considered
essential costs of a corporate executive of doing business and
are recognized by our taxation system. At the other end of the
spectrum, when looking at the work of an auto mechanic, no such
recognition is provided.
When I was first elected in 1997 I received a number of letters
from auto mechanics in east Vancouver. We have a number of
successful car dealerships just at the edge of my riding. I
received a number of letters from skilled auto mechanics
regarding the unfairness in the tax system and the fact that they
could not claim their tools which were to them a fair and
legitimate expense.
The bill is a very good initiative and an good example of what a
positive contribution private member's bills can make in the
House. We may not be able to solve the problems of the whole
world but we can bring specific concerns forward for debate, seek
the support of other members of the House and actually get them
approved.
Not only is this a good bill but it is a good example of how we
can cut across party lines and actually support a small but very
reasonable initiative.
1345
The New Democratic Party most wholeheartedly supports this
initiative. We believe it is important to recognize the work
that auto mechanics do. The small break they would get as a
result of this bill being passed is important to those people. It
would not change the total scheme of things. I do not think it
would upset any balance. It could be seen as part of a direction
to support the idea of fair taxation, which is taxation is based
on ability to pay. It is based on the idea that a tax system
should be progressive and certainly there are major issues within
our tax system that we can hold up as examples of great
inequities within the system.
Another constituent of mine brought forward the example of a
pensioner or someone with a very low income who is sent a
shortened income tax form, even shorter than the regular one. I
think it is called a TS1A. If a pensioner or someone on a low
income happens to make a political contribution, as many
pensioners do, the form itself does not actually contain the
appropriate line for the contribution. It has to be put
somewhere else. As a result anyone making a $100 contribution
would end up getting a credit of only $17 whereas those using the
regular tax form would get a full credit of $58.
I bring this forward because to me it is just another example of
practices that have gone on within the system. Maybe they go on
unnoticed. No one pays attention to them. They are actually
discriminatory. They do not recognize that in the case of the
pensioner or low income person making a political contribution,
the person actually gets ripped off by the tax system relative to
those of us who fill out the full length form.
I think the motion is along those lines in terms of wanting to
make a small change that will provide some recognition and value
regarding the real cost of tools for this work.
I congratulate the member for continuing to press the matter in
the House of Commons and for not giving up. It is sometimes
through these small advances that working people get a better
break. I would hope that all auto mechanics in Quebec, in my
province of British Columbia and in other places in Canada would
have the benefit of what would come from the approval of this
bill.
We would certainly encourage the government to actually
translate the bill into the necessary tax system change. I think
most people anticipate that the bill would be approved and I
thank the member for bringing it forward. All of us in the New
Democratic caucus support his initiative in the bill.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak
in support of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Income Tax Act for
the deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for the tools
required for employment.
I first acknowledge the tremendous leadership my Canadian
Alliance colleague from Lakeland has shown in providing
information on the issue. He introduced Bill C-244, which is
identical in subject matter to the bill before us today, and I
know that as a newly elected member of parliament it is issues
such as this one and the quality and calibre of representation of
members like the member for Lakeland that bring credit to this
institution.
1350
During the November 22, 2000, election I had the opportunity to
speak to a number of mechanics who were very aware of this issue.
In fact I spoke to one mechanic from Petawawa, Ontario who told
me that he had been working on this issue for 30 years. It was
his wish that while it was probably too late for him to see any
fairness on the issue, hopefully this issue could be resolved for
his son who is looking to follow in his footsteps now.
What has been very disappointing in regard to this issue is how
it so clearly demonstrates the dysfunction of parliament. This
is a private member's bill. All members should be allowed to
look at the proposal and then decide on behalf of their
constituents whether this is an issue that they should support.
All members should let their conscience be their guide and vote
accordingly. In the last election Liberal members said they
supported this legislation.
The government does not care about whether or not its members
have an informed opinion about a particular piece of legislation.
They are now being whipped into line with the silliest of
objections. It is a shame that members of the government party
are muzzled in the way they are.
I am proud that I am able to do something that no government
member is allowed to do, that is, to speak freely and vote freely
in the House of Commons. This sad fact was also brought home
with the decision by the Liberal Party to force its members,
except for one or two brave souls, to vote against its election
promise, something it received votes for as part of its election
platform, to vote against an independent ethics counsellor. What
a sad day for the democratic process in Canada.
I know that there are some conscientious members on the
government side. There were enough of them on the House of
Commons finance committee before the last election to direct the
Minister of Finance in their report, in prebudget consultations,
and tell him to do the right thing and change the tax rules so
that mechanics would be treated fairly.
Let us take a look at some of the government's objections. These
objections were raised by the government in regard to
implementing tax fairness for mechanics. Let us be clear. We
are not talking about special treatment. We are talking about
fairness.
The Liberal government's first excuse is that mechanics make too
much money for this write-off. Frankly that is such a foolish
assertion that I am astonished the government even made it. This
proposal is not about whether mechanics are charity cases and
whether the government should throw them a few scraps. This is
about being treated fairly under the Income Tax Act and in
relation to how others are treated as well. It is a sad
commentary that the Liberal Party should feel this way.
The Liberal government also says it is true that mechanics need
to spend anywhere from $20,000 to $70,000 on tools, but that is a
cost incurred over maybe 40 years. That may be the way the
government does equipment procurement for the military, but I
have news for the government: tools wear out or get lost.
That is why some employers make it a condition of hiring that
mechanics buy their own tools. If mechanics do not own their own
tools, some owners have found, the tools disappear. They get
left on vehicles or misplaced. It just happens. I am not
talking about theft because I do not believe that to be a problem
whatsoever. Tools get misplaced around the home as well. The
issue is that mechanics must have their own tools as a condition
of employment. Others such as shop owners can write off the cost
of their tools. The issue here is tax fairness.
1355
The Liberal government knows this but it persists with the myth
that somehow this is a special treatment rule. It is not. It is
an issue of tax fairness.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise to speak to the bill presented by my
colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, a
bill that is being presented for the second time.
I would like to point out his determination—I would even say his
endurance and pride—in coming back once more before the House
with a bill that will make things much easier for those who work
as mechanics.
Moreover, this is a votable bill. As we all know, my colleague
presented the same bill in the last parliament, and 213 members
voted in favour of the bill.
That says a lot, when you think that there are 301 members in
the House.
Again, we hope to have the same kind of support for this bill,
which is really forward looking in this field, and I want to
insist on that.
The purpose of the bill is to allow mechanics to deduct the cost
of providing tools for their employment. In the last 15 years,
members from almost all parties have introduced private member's
bills to ensure that mechanics could deduct the cost of their
tools.
It is very important here to consider that—I am going to speak a
little about the past—when we began even a few years ago to
encourage all our young people to go to university, as my
colleague mentioned earlier in his speech, we neglected the
vocational sector to some degree.
I was looking earlier at the statistics in my own riding. I
have 1,300 mechanics working in the Laurentides riding. That is
not insignificant. A look at the work of mechanics reveals it
to be fairly hard work, physically difficult and requiring a lot
of energy and good health. It is not the sort of job a person
can continue doing to age 70. It is the sort of job people
retire early from, at age 50 or 55, because it requires an
enormous amount of physical energy.
These people will therefore expend their energy differently and
much more physically than we parliamentarians here in the House.
It is an absolutely vital trade. We could never do without
mechanics. Madam Speaker, if you had a flat on the highway, or
if I did, I can tell you I would be very happy to see a mechanic
coming to help. Even changing a spare is not something all the
members of the House could do.
This is a very important trade, for which I have very great
respect.
As I was saying, in another decade, everyone went to university.
Now we are realizing we have a shortage, especially in areas
such as mechanics. Young people get specialized training in
schools and colleges. They pay a lot for that, and when they
enter the labour market, most private places they go to work
for, either garages or institutions, ask then “Listen, do you
have your tool chest?”
But a tool chest costs a lot of money. It does not cost hundreds
of thousands of dollars, but it still costs several thousands.
To work in a garage or a service station, these young people
need a solid background, and the necessary tools right from the
start.
Sure enough, if we compare with Bombardier, it will supply tools
to its workers. Bombardier is specialized in this area. But if
you take an independent worker, who works in a small garage in a
village or in a local garage, as much as possible he must
provide his own basic tools.
It is like a hairdresser; she needs her tools to work and she
provides them.
1400
So he is considered to be a sort of self-employed worker. These
young people are barely into their twenties when they enter the
labour market, and they are penalized, often on top of having to
pay back their tuition, costs of special training, because they
must go into debt just as they are hitting adulthood in order to
pay for tools. I think that this is unacceptable.
When we see that the federal government is racking up surpluses
on the backs of unemployed workers—we are talking about a
whopping $38 billion—when we see that it has so much money and
that it is not able to help young people get a start in life,
that is unacceptable.
This bill would correct this situation. It would be an
excellent beginning for the government. It could stop resorting
to parables and show us once and for all that it truly intends
to help young people enter the labour market. It could innovate
even further because, in other trades, such as plumbing or
electrical, in all these fields, it could eventually do almost
the same thing.
There are 1,300 mechanics in my riding of Laurentides. We
should be able to encourage these people from the beginning; we
are not asking for the moon and the stars.
There are 115,000 mechanics in this country who invest an
average of between $15,000 and $40,000 each for their tools and
equipment. Their average pay is not all that much; according to
some, they earn an average of $29,000 annually. With $29,000,
if a mechanic has to buy a set of tools worth between $15,000 and
$40,000, I can tell the House that it will take a mechanic many years to pay
for them; this is a form of mortgage for these people and a
mortgage takes 20 years to pay off.
I believe that we have the means, the capacity and the cash to help
them get a start in life. We keep hearing in committee that
young people are important, that women are important, that
everything possible is going to be done to help them, so perhaps
it is high time the Liberal government made good on its desire
to do good deeds. We are still hearing talk in the human
resources development committee about loans and scholarships,
but that is not what is needed.
What is needed is something tangible. We need the government to
take prompt action in matters such as this. We need a majority
vote here in this House. The Minister of Finance has the fiscal
capacity to accommodate it. It can be calculated, very rapidly
even. We need a gesture of good will from this government.
I repeat that I totally support my colleague for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and sincerely hope
we can have as good a vote as we did during the last parliament,
that our colleagues will be informed on the issue and will also
speak on it. They are, of course, welcome to add their comments
on Bill C-222.
We would be very pleased to finally see a tax policy that will
help trades people, who often have not had the opportunity to
attend university but who work very hard at what they do, who do
marvellous work and for whom we have enormous respect. These
people absolutely deserve to have help getting off to a good
start in life.
1405
Today in the House, the government has an opportunity to provide
these young people with the support they so greatly need. We
cannot ignore them. We need positive, real and tangible
policies so that our young people can get off to a real start
toward a better life.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this place to speak in defence
of those who perform the mechanical repairs on our vehicles.
This issue has been ongoing for many years in parliament,
certainly all the years I have been here. I am up to the
challenge today of persuading 172 Liberals to vote in favour of
the private member's bill. I hope I can convince at least half
of them. As for the others, I do not care if they vote against
it. If I can get half the Liberals to support the bill then
finally the injustice would be stopped.
What injustice are we talking about? I am speaking about the
fact that a taxation principle is being unfairly applied when it
comes to the tools used by mechanics. The general tax principle
is that people can deduct from income money that is expended in
earning an income. For example, if a farmer requires a tool in
order to do the work of earning an income on the farm, the cost
of that tool is a deductible expense when it comes to filing
income tax. In other words, they can buy a tool that they need
without having to pay income tax on the money earned to purchase
it.
There are many other professions where this applies. When I
walk down the mall in some of my communities I see a doctor's
office with a sign that says professional corporation. That
designation is so that the doctor can deduct the cost of the
expense of the equipment which he or she needs to earn income.
Lawyers deduct the cost of all tools they need to do their jobs.
Accountants register themselves as professional corporations
thereby being able to claim all the expenses of earning an income
and avoiding income tax on that portion.
Almost everyone can deduct from income money that is spent to
earn income, either instantaneously as an expense or through some
form of depreciation. While we are talking about a straight
deductibility for mechanics, the government may also want to look
at providing a system of capital cost allowances. Costs could be
depreciated year by year until the value has been totally written
off.
I remember a real estate acquaintance of mine who took an old
used door that he had in his basement and put it on top of two
milk cartons, set a chair in front of it and called it a desk. He
was able to deduct from income tax the proportional cost of his
house as he worked as a real estate agent. He was able to deduct
a presumed cost that he had in earning his income.
When it is an explicit requirement that a mechanic have tools to
do his or her job to earn income, why is it that the government
and all governments before have discriminated against mechanics
by not allowing them to either deduct from income the cost of
their tools or to depreciate them on an ongoing capital cost
allowance basis?
1410
That is blatant unfairness and it needs to be corrected. That
is why I am so passionately pleading with 172 Liberals and other
members of the opposition to vote in favour of the bill. The
bill, in one form or another, has been in front of every
parliament since I came here and the government has scuttled it
every time by letting it go on and on until finally there was a
prorogation of the House and the bill was dropped.
I know quite a bit about the use of tools. I used to do all my
own mechanical work. The very first car I owned was a 1959
Meteor, a fantastic gift from my parents. It was my primary
vehicle for 25 years and I drove it every day. I always said
that I would drive it to the moon, and the mileage on it when it
finally cratered was just 5,000 miles short of having driven the
equivalent distance from the earth to the moon.
The reason I did my own mechanical work was that I was not a
very rich kid. My dad's friend gave me a grease gun so I did my
own grease jobs. I bought oil in bulk and did my own oil changes.
When something needed fixing and I did not have the tool, I went
to the store and bought it so I would have it the next time. In
one of my vehicles I had the major task of replacing the bearings
in the differential. I borrowed a gauge for the very precise
measurement of spaces that was required for that job. I bought
an expensive Craftsman tool at Sears so I could take it apart. I
still have the socket even if I only used it once. I do not claim
to have the right to deduct it from my income. However, one thing
I did learn was that accumulating tools was a very costly thing
and all I had were the basic tools. I could not afford a winch
so when I did a motor job on my Honda Civic I took the head off
it before I took the motor out. Then I lifted the motor out so I
would not need a winch.
Tool costs are extremely high. When most mechanics are hired by
garages and service stations a condition to their employment is
that they have their own tools. Without their tools they could
not touch a thing, just as I could not. If I did not have the
right tool I had to buy it. The same thing is true for
mechanics. When they do not have the right tool they go out and
buy it unless they can persuade a fellow worker to lend it to
them. Once they have it, it is in their toolbox.
An empty toolbox without any tools that rolls on the floor costs
between $300 to $400. Mechanics must invest between $20,000 and
$50,000 in order to do their job. It is high time we recognized
both the importance of the work they do and the unfairness that
is being perpetrated on them by not allowing them to deduct the
tool expenses from their taxable income.
As has been mentioned, those tools also have to be replaced
because they wear out and some are lost. I have on numerous
occasions picked tools up off the highway because I know the
value of them. I also know that if they are left on the road
they can be kicked up and cause damage to a vehicle, such as
puncturing a tire or even causing injury to another person.
1415
I have picked up a few screwdrivers and other things which I
have found on the road. It is pretty well impossible to find out
from where these things came. Likely a mechanic left them
sitting on some part of the motor when he was working on it and
forgot to remove them. The person for whom the work was done drove
away and the screwdrivers fell onto the highway. This is another source of
loss.
Losses have to be replaced. That is a cost item. I plead with
all members to agree that there is no reason in the world why
these people should not be treated the same as anyone else who
has a cost of employment to that extent in earning their income. I
again emphasize my plea to members to please vote in favour of
this bill so that finally this inequity will be solved.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased
to speak on Bill C-222, a very important bill brought forward by
the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
As a number of other members have mentioned, a concept of this
bill has been before the House many times before. In my previous
life I was a self-employed chartered accountant. I had many
mechanics, both employed and self-employed, as my clients, so I
am very familiar with their concern regarding this issue.
I believe a number of interveners have possibly misunderstood
the concept. The first issue is self-employment as opposed to
employment. In fact the previous speaker gave many examples of
people who were able to deduct tools, et cetera, by virtue of the
fact that they were deemed to be self-employed. He was also
confused about incorporated and unincorporated businesses.
Unincorporated self-employed people are allowed to deduct
expenses laid out to earn income.
There is a significant difference in the income tax system
between people who are employed as opposed to people who are
self-employed. We can have a long debate about that in and of
itself, but generally speaking it is considered that people who
are self-employed have likely more substantial risk in earning an
income than do people who receive a weekly paycheque. Some
people dispute that in this day and age when people are getting
laid off of their jobs and so forth, but that is some of the
foundation that underlies why this situation has occurred.
The issue of fairness was mentioned. A number of interveners
said that it was only being fair to do this. I understand that
plight and the costs involved in acquiring and even maintaining a
tool inventory. However many people who are employed have
similar costs related to being employed. Even we have a dress
code in the House of Commons. I incur costs for suits and other
things related to maintaining my job as a condition of
employment, but these costs are not tax deductible.
I have two young sons who are engaged in the high tech sector.
While it is not a specific condition of their employment, they
feel it is part of their jobs to have computers in their homes.
They use those computers as an extension of their work, but they
are not allowed to deduct those computers for tax purposes.
The fact of the matter is that if we are going to start talking
about fairness, we are going to have to talk about a lot of other
people. I am sure people in our audience today or sitting at
home watching this debate who are employed can think of things
that they incur as well to earn employment income.
Uniforms is another issue that has been around for years.
People may be required to wear uniforms such as a waitress or
whatever the case may be. They are required to buy the uniform
from their employers, but are not allowed to deduct them for tax
purposes. That is another idiosyncrasy of the income tax system.
I am sure all of us can think of reasons why we should have a
tax deduction. The real issue is why should this group of people
be treated somewhat differently than all other people who are
employed.
To go over the bill itself, the bill proposes to change the
Income Tax Act to help mechanics to pay the costs of providing
their own tools when this is a condition of their employment. I
think that is very important.
1420
We should also ask ourselves a fundamental question. Why is it
a condition of employment for mechanics to buy their own tools?
There are a lot of reasons for that but it has developed
differently from other industries.
Changes would allow mechanics to deduct the cost of buying,
renting, insuring or maintaining their tools. Income deductions
would be available for tools costing less than $250 and this
could be adjusted in accordance with inflation. That is what the
bill says. For bigger amounts it would be subject to capital
cost allowance and allowed to be deducted over a period of time.
The Government of Canada understands the difficult issue this
bill is trying to address. We appreciate that employed mechanics
face work related costs that are sometimes significant. This is
particularly true, and it has been brought out in the debate
today, of young people who have just become mechanics and have to
buy that first investment. It is well known that if people enter
a career path as a mechanic, they will have to buy their first
set of tools. It does not alleviate the fact that it is very
expensive and could be cost prohibitive to people becoming
mechanics.
There is some merit that the bill is trying to achieve. However
the bill overlooks some very important administrative issues,
issues that would need to be considered if the bill went forward.
For instance, the bill talks about the word mechanic. Many
people have used the words auto mechanic but it does not say that
in the bill. Canada's national occupation code lists many kinds
of mechanics. There are automotive mechanics, but there are also
auto body mechanics, heavy duty mechanics, small engine
mechanics, aircraft mechanics and many varieties of industrial
mechanics. That has not been defined in the bill. People have
used the analogy automotive mechanics but the bill says mechanics
of all kinds.
Many other people would call themselves mechanics as defined
under Statistics Canada even though they may not fit
in any of those particular categories. In reality the bill has
brought forward a great deal of confusion.
Another important administrative issue is how the deduction will
work under the bill. I am puzzled by the use of the thresholds.
The bill talks about those amounts in excess of $200, I believe,
which is different from the current capital cost allowance
provisions which is $250. In other words, it would appear that
the bill anticipates some other form of capital cost allowance
regime. This is a mystery to me.
What is even stranger is the bill talks about the
proportionality of tools in excess of $250. I have a hard time
reading and understanding it myself. I am assuming if a
particular tool was $1,000, the first $250 would be deducted as a
regular expense and the $750 would somehow be added to a person's
capital cost allowance schedule as a depreciation.
There is no system of the Income Tax Act that treats capital
acquisitions in that manner. It does not take part of a car and
write it off while the other part is depreciated over a long
period of time. It does not take part of a tractor, write it off
and depreciate the balance over a long period of time.
The bill is inconsistent and does not fit in with the current
income tax regime. Therefore, it is not a simple bill. It is a
very complex bill that deals with a whole different method of
depreciation and providing for capital cost allowances.
1425
One of the problems is the matter of control. We recognize that
in some areas there are already mechanisms which apply to
employees who have to pay out of their own pocket for work
supplies. The cost of chainsaws is allowed to be written off by
loggers because it is recognized that they depreciate quicker
than other forms of equipment.
We have to sit back from this issue and think about it for a
minute. We talk about fairness but there are other employed
people who are treated similarly to mechanics. This is not to
say that mechanics are not deserving of some kind of treatment,
but if we open up that Pandora's box we will have to open it up
for a lot of other people, especially some of the people who are
listening to us today.
My preference is that at this time the bill not go forward until
it is studied further.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-222 that was
introduced by my colleague from
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. This is the second
time that he has introduced this bill. Unfortunately, it died on
the Order Paper because the election was called.
I understand his situation, because I remind the House, without
going into this too much, that I myself introduced a bill on
shipbuilding that also died on the Order Paper when it was on
the verge of being passed at third reading. The government
preferred not to pass it.
Again today, during Oral Question Period, we talked about this.
The same thing applies to mechanics. At the time, at second
reading, only 11 members had voted against the bill. Before the
election, many Liberal members had voted for the bill. I hope
they will continue to do so. It is simply the election that
prevented it from being passed.
I listened to my two Liberal colleagues who spoke about this
bill. The parliamentary secretary basically maintained the
position he took last time. But I am a little surprised to see
the position taken by the member for Durham, who has often shown
that he can not only express himself in an independent way, but
also vote independently from his government when he had the
opportunity—
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like it known that I voted against the bill the
first time round.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I was saying that the member
for Durham had shown, on a few occasions, that he placed the
interest of his constituents before the position of his party.
At any rate, he put forward several arguments which I think
should be discussed by the finance committee, which would be
called upon to study this bill and bring the necessary
amendments, keeping in mind that we must not establish a
precedent.
I simply remind those who are listening to us that we are still
looking at the principle of the bill. The member talked about
tradition. This is something I know about. I have two brothers
who work in this field. One is an employee who specializes in
automatic transmissions, and his tools are very expensive. The
other one owns his own garage and could claim a capital cost
allowance on his tools. There is a double standard here. One is
self-employed whereas the other one is an employee. So I know
what I am talking about today.
For the benefit of my constituents, very often, in the House, I
talk about the Lévis shipyard. When that shipyard is in full
operation, it employs 1,000 to 1,500 workers. In my riding, this
bill also affects 1,200 to 1,500 workers. Therefore it is very
important.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
[English]
It being 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)